























































































Class 



Book - o 1 -ii?_ 

CofyrightBJ?_1 9 0 S 


COFYPvIGHT DEPOSIT. 
























OUTLINES OF 


THE LIFE OF CHRIST 












OUTLINES OF THE 
LIFE OF CHRIST 

BY 

0 

W. SANDAY, D.D., LL.D., Litt.D. 

w 

LADY MARGARET PROFESSOR AND CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD 
HON. FELLOW OF EXETER COLLEGE 
FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY 
CHAPLAIN-IN-ORDINARY TO THE KING 


NEW YORK 

CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 

1905 


LIBRARY of CONGRESS 
Two Copies rteceivuu 


fES S7 1905 

^.Oopyrlitni tnlry 

7u. a*. 'l»r 



COPY B. 


J 



Copyright, 1899, 1905, by 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 


Published, February, 1905. 



LC Control Number 



tmp96 025928 









PREFATORY NOTE. 


The Publishers are of opinion that the time has now 
come when it would be right to accede to a wish that 
has been expressed in various quarters for a separate 
issue of the article Jesus Christ in vol. ii. of Dr. Hast¬ 
ings’ Dictionary of the Bible. This volume appeared in 
1899; and it has been thought best to reprint the article 
much as it stood, with such amount of change as is neces¬ 
sary to carry out the principle of mutatis mutandis, and 
to convert it into a book. The writer is engaged upon 
a larger work on the same subject, which is not likely 
to appear for some years; and he thinks it better not to 
attempt to bring his first experiment more strictly up to 
date, but rather to leave it as an expression of his own 
mind and of such a view as he was able to form of the 
general position at the time when it was written, i.e. in 
the years preceding 1899. The principal addition to the 
present issue is the map, which has been carefully pre¬ 
pared by Messrs. W. & A. K. Johnston, on the basis 
mainly of the map in the writer’s Sacred Sites of the 
Gospels (Oxford, 1903), with improvements and with some 
additions suggested by the map to illustrate the article 


VI 


PREFATORY NOTE 


Roads and Travel, by Professors Buhl and W. M. Ram¬ 
say, in the Extra Volume of the Dictionary; and also by 
the map accompanying an article on the ‘ Onomasticon ’ 
of Eusebius published in the Zeitschrift d. Deutschen 
Ealdstina- Vereins, vol. xxvi. part 4 (Leipzig, 1903). The 
map further embodies the writer’s changed opinion as 
to the site of Capernaum, explained in the Journal of 
Theological Studies for October 1903. It will be under¬ 
stood that the purpose was to illustrate the state of 
Palestine in or near the time of our Lord, and in part 
to connect it with the Palestine of the present day. For 
this reason a few crusading or modern sites are given 
where there are still notable ruins. The free use that 
has been made of the map in Sacred Sites is with the kind 
permission of the Delegates of the Clarendon Press. 

Oxford, December 1904. 

N.B. — The abbreviations in this book are those adopted in 
Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Charles Scribner’s 
Sons). 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER I. 

PAGE ' 

Introductory.. 

CHAPTER II. 

Survey of Conditions.7 

CHAPTER III. 

The Early Ministry.31 

CHAPTER IV. 

Teaching and Miracles.65 

CHAPTER V. 

The Later Ministry.119 

CHAPTER VI. 

The Messianic Crisis.139 

CHAPTER VII. 

Supplemental Matter: The Nativity and Infancy . . 191 

CHAPTER VIII. 

The Verdict of History . . , . . . .211 

vii 






















OUTLINES OF 

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 


CHAPTER I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

§ 1 . Method. — What method is fittest for a Christian 
writer to use in approaching the Life of Christ ? There 
is a tendency at the present moment, on the Continent 
perhaps rather than in England, to approach it from 
the side of the consciousness of Jesus as the Messiah. 
A conspicuous instance of this would be Baldensperger’s 
Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu (Strassburg, 1888 ; 2nd ed. 
1892), a work which attracted considerable attention 
when it first appeared. No doubt such a method has 
its advantages. It places the inquirer at once at the 
centre of the position, and enables him to look down 
the various roads by which he will have to travel. The 
advantage, however, is more apparent than real. It 
would hold good only if we could be sure of obtain¬ 
ing a far more adequate grasp of the consciousness 
1 1 



2 


INTRODUCTORY 


to be investigated than on any hypothesis is likely to be 
obtained. On the Christian hypothesis, frankly held, 
any such grasp would seem to be excluded, and the 
attempt to reach it could hardly be made without irrever¬ 
ence. 

It is on all grounds a safer and sounder, as well as a 
more promising method, to adopt a course which is the 
opposite of this — not to work from within outwards, 
but from without inwards ; to begin with that aspect of 
the Life which is most external, and only when we have 
realized this as well as we may to seek to penetrate 
deeper, allowing the facts to suggest their own inner 
meaning. We may then take in certain sidelights 
which our documents also afford us, which, because 
they come, as it were, from the side, are not therefore 
less valuable. And we may finally strengthen our con¬ 
clusions by following the history some little way into its 
sequel. In other words, we shall begin by placing our¬ 
selves at the standpoint of an observer, one of those 
who saw the public ministry of Jesus in its early stages, 
in its development, and to its close. When that has 
been fully unrolled before us, we can draw upon other 
data which are not of this public character; and we 
may further seek to argue backwards from effects to 
causes. 

By pursuing this method we shall have the advantage 
of taking the facts in no imaginary order, but in the 
order of the history itself. We shall have them dis¬ 
closed to us in the same sort of sequence in which they 
were disclosed to the first generations of Christians — 
a method always advisable where it can be had, and 
in this instance peculiarly advisable, because both the 


TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE MATERIALS 3 

origins and the immediate sequel to the origins are of 
extreme interest and importance. 

We shall also have the incidental advantage of fol¬ 
lowing, not only the historical order, but the critical 
order suggested by the documents. It was natural 
that what was transacted in public should have the 
fullest and the earliest attestation: it lay in the nature 
of the case that some of the details which were most 
significant, just because of their private and intimate 
character, should become known only by degrees. 
This state of things is reflected in the Gospels as we 
have them. The common matter of the Synoptic 
Gospels is also the most public matter. It by no means 
follows that what is peculiar to a single Gospel is by 
that fact stamped as less historical: no one would think 
(e.g.) of affirming this of some of the parables peculiar 
to St. Luke; but it is fair to suppose that in the first 
instance it was less widely diffused. To this class would 
belong the narratives of the Nativity and of the Infancy. 
It will be in some ways a gain not to begin with these, 
but to let them enter into the story as they entered into 
it with the first Christians. More than one point which 
might otherwise perplex us will in this way suggest its 
own explanation. 

§ 2 . Limits of space do not allow us to go elaborately 
into the question as to the trustworthiness of our 
materials. It may suffice to point to one undoubted 
fact which furnishes at least a considerable presumption 
in their favour. The apostolic age produced some 
strongly marked personalities, with well defined types 
of thought and phraseology. Now, broadly speaking, 


4 


INTRODUCTORY 


these types have left but little trace upon the Gospels. 
The special type characteristic of the Gospels them¬ 
selves stands out conspicuously over against them. 
We need hardly do more than refer to such very sig¬ 
nificant facts as that the Gospels alone contain specimens 
of teaching by parables; that the idea of the ‘ kingdom 
of heaven ’ (or ‘ of God ’), which is quite central in the 
Gospels, recedes into the background in the writings of 
the apostles; that the same holds good of that most 
significant title ‘ Son of Man ’; that, on the other hand, 
such a term as ‘ justify ’ is rare and hardly technical, 
while ‘ justification,’ ‘sanctification,’ ‘reconciliation’ 
(or ‘ atonement ’), and a number of others, are wholly 
absent. It may be said that the Fourth Gospel is an 
exception, that there we have a suspicious resemblance 
to the style and diction of the Epp. of St. John. Some 
resemblance there is, and we would not entirely reject 
the inference drawn from it. But even here the ex¬ 
ception is but partial. It has often been noticed that 
the evangelist scrupulously confines his doctrine of the 
Logos to the prologue. 

The writer of this may be allowed once more to 
express the conviction,* which he believes that con¬ 
tinued investigation will confirm, that the great mass 
of the Synoptic Gospels had assumed its permanent 
shape not later than the decade 60-70 a.d., and that the 
changes which it underwent after the great catastrophe 
of the fall of Jerusalem were but small, and can with¬ 
out difficulty be recognized. 

But the task on which we are at present engaged 
must in the main supply its own vindication. The 
* See the Bampton Lectures for 1893, P* 286 ff. 


DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT 


5 


picture which it is here attempted to draw will com¬ 
mend itself so far as it is consistent and coherent, and 
no further. No one, indeed, expects in these days the 
formal and external consistency aimed at in the older 
Harmonies ; but the writer himself believes that in their 
inner essence the Gospels are consistent and coherent, 
and if he fails to convey the impression of this, the 
failure will be his own. He is conscious of something 
tentative in the way in which he has sought to work in 
data derived from the Fourth Gospel with those derived 
from the other three. But here, again, he is giving 
expression to the best opinion he can form, and the 
value of that opinion must be judged by the result. 
Where he is not satisfied with his own success, he has 
not hesitated to say so. 

§ 3 . To what has been said above it should be added, 
that if we assume the standpoint of a spectator, a brief 
preface will be needed to explain what that standpoint 
is. In other words, we shall have at the outset to take 
a rapid survey of the conditions under which the Life of 
Christ was lived, so that we may see to what His teach¬ 
ing had to attach itself, and what served for it as a foil, 
by way of contrast and antagonism. 

The main divisions of our subject will thus be — 

I. Survey of Conditions. 

II. The Public Ministry of Jesus, preceded by that of the 
Baptist. 

III. Supplemental Matter, not included in the Public Min¬ 

istry, and derived from special sources. 

IV. The Verdict of History. 






CHAPTER II. 

SURVEY OF CONDITIONS. 

§ 4 . The picture which we form for ourselves of 
Palestine in the time of our Lord is apt to be want¬ 
ing in play and variety. A few strong and simple 
colours are all that are used; we do not allow enough 
for their blending, or for the finer and subtler tones 
which mingle with them. We see the worldly 
ambition of the Sadducees, the self-seeking and for¬ 
malism of the Pharisees; over both, the rough stern 
rule of the Roman; and under both, the chafing 
tide of popular passion, working itself up to its out¬ 
burst of fury in the Great War. Perhaps we throw 
in somewhere in a comer the cloistered communities 
of the Essenes; but if so, it is rather as standing 
apart by themselves than as entering into the general 
life. 

It is not so much that this picture is wrong as that it 
needs to be supplemented, and it needs a little toning 
down of the light and shade. This is the case especially 
with the internal conditions, the state of thought and of 
the religious life. 


7 


8 


SURVEY OF CONDITIONS 


A . External Conditions : Government, Sects, 
and Parties. 

§ 5 . The external conditions are so comparatively 
simple and so well known that a rapid glance at them 
will suffice. 

At the time of our Lord’s public ministry, Judaea and 
Samaria were directly subject to the Romans, and were 
governed by a procurator (Pontius Pilate, a.d. 26-36), 
who was to some extent subordinate to the legatus of 
Syria. Pilate had a character for cruelty (cf. Lk 13 1 ). 
And the Roman rule was no doubt as a whole harsh 
and unfeeling: we read of wholesale executions, which 
took the horrible form of crucifixion. But the people 
whom Rome had to govern were turbulent in the 
extreme; and so far as the Roman authorities come 
before us in NT, we cannot refuse them the credit of a 
desire to do a sort of rough justice. 

The odious duty of collecting tolls and taxes for the 
Romans led to the employment of a class of underlings 
(7reXwmt, publicani ), who were regarded almost as out¬ 
casts by their Jewish countrymen. 

The north and east of Palestine were still in the hands 
of sons of Herod. Antipas (4 b.c. to 39 a.d.) held 
Galilee and Peraea; and his brother Philip (4 b.c. to 
34 a.d.) , Ituraea and Trachonitis. The name given to 
the former, ‘ that fox ’ (Lk 13 32 ), will sufficiently describe 
him; he was living in open sin with Herodias, the wife 
of another brother, but was not wholly unvisited by re¬ 
morse, and had at least curiosity in matters of religion 
(Mk 6 20 !!, Lk 23 s ). His capital was at Tiberias, on the 
Sea of Galilee, and he also held possession of the strong 


SECTS AND PARTIES 


9 


fortress of Machaerus * E. of the Dead Sea. Herod Philip 
governed his dominions quietly, and was the best and most 
popular of his father’s sons. 

§ 6. The Sadducees (Zadokite priests) consisted 
mainly of certain aristocratic priestly families (Ac 4 6 ) 
who held almost a monopoly of the high priesthood, 
and who played an influential and active part in the 
Sanhedrin, which under the Romans wielded consider¬ 
able power. They were typical opportunists, and were 
bent above all things on keeping their own rights and 
privileges. Hence they were sensitive on the subject 
of popular disorder, which was likely to serve as an 
excuse to the Romans for displacing them (Jn n 48 ). 
It was a coalition of Pharisees and Sadducees which 
procured the death of our Lord, but in the period of the 
Acts the Sadducees were the more active persecutors. 
Religion with them was secondary, but they differed 
somewhat both in doctrine and in practice from the 
Pharisees (Ac 23 s ; cf. Edersheim, Life and Times , i. 
314-321, etc.). They did not encumber themselves 
with the Pharisaic traditions, but took their stand upon 
the Pentateuch. They were notorious for strictness in 
judgment. 

As contrasted with the Sadducees, the Pharisees 
(lit. Separatists or Purists) were essentially the religious 
party. They numbered more than 6000 (Ant. xvn. ii. 4), 
and were pledged to a high standard of life and scrupu- 

* In Ant. xvin. v. 2 Machaerus is in the possession of Antipas, 
in the previous § it belongs to Aretas ; but the reading of this 
latter passage is questionable (cf. Schiirer, NTZG i. 362 n. 365 n. 
\_HJP 1. ii. 23, 25]). 


10 


SURVEY OF CONDITIONS 


lous performance of religious duties (Mt 23 s3 ). Un¬ 
fortunately, the high standard was outward rather than 
inward. The elaborate casuistry to which the Pharisees 
had recourse was used as a means of evading moral 
obligations (Mk 7 1_13 || 12 38_40 ll, Mt 23 13_33 ), and resulted in 
a spirit hard, narrow, and self-righteous. 

Not exactly coextensive with the Pharisees, though 
largely to be identified with them (we read of ‘ scribes 
of the Pharisees,’ Mk 2 16 RV; i.e. ‘ scribes who belonged 
to the party of the Pharisees’), were the Scribes 
(ypa/x/xaTets, vo/xlkol, vo/xo 8 i 8 aaKaAoi), or professed students 
of the law, who supplied the Pharisees with their 
principles. They had to a large extent taken the 
place of the priests as the preachers and teachers of 
Judaism. Their chief fields of action were the syna¬ 
gogues and the Rabbinical schools. The most highly 
respected of the scribes were the great religious authori¬ 
ties of the day. It was their successors who built up 
the Talmud. There were differences of opinion within 
the body ( e.g . the rival schools of Hillel and Shammai, 
contemporaries of Herod the Great), but, without, their 
dicta were unquestioned. This veneration was, as a rule, 
only requited with contempt. 

While the Pharisees at this date for the most part 
(though not entirely) held aloof from politics, on the 
ground that religion as they conceived it could be 
practised indifferently under any domination, and their 
own experiences under the national line, represented 
by Alexander Jannaeus, had been the reverse of happy, 
the mass of the people were burning to throw off the 
yoke of the stranger. The party of action, which was 
prepared to go all lengths, was known as the Zealots. 


SECTS AND PARTIES 


II 


One member of this party was numbered among the 
apostles (Mt io 4 , Mk 3 18 , Lk 6 15 , Ac i 13 ). In the siege 
of Jerusalem they took the lead, and were distinguished 
at once by heroic courage and by horrible crimes. 

The dynasty of the Herods had from the first claimed 
alliance with Hellenic culture. The founder of the 
dynasty had mixed with advantage to himself in the 
haute politique of his day; and he had signalized his 
reign by buildings in the Greek style, but on a scale of 
barbaric magnificence. The courts of the Herods must 
always have had a tincture of Hellenism about them. 
But the reaction against this was strong, and its influ¬ 
ence probably did not extend very far, though it inspired 
the historians Nicolaus of Damascus, Justus of Tiberias, 
and Josephus. More likely to affect the lower and 
middle strata of the population would be the ‘ Greek 
cities ’ founded by the Syrian kings before the Macca- 
baean rising, such as the cluster known as Decapolis, 
for the most part east of the Jordan, with later founda¬ 
tions like the flourishing port of Caesarea. But more 
important still would be the influence of the Jews of 
the Diaspora, constantly coming and going to the great 
feasts at Jerusalem, and with synagogues for their 
special use permanently established there (Ac 6 9 ). The 
greatest of the centres with which the Jews were thus 
brought in contact were Alexandria and Antioch. And 
there is reason to think that the amount of intellectual 
intercourse and interchange was by no means incon¬ 
siderable. 

There must have been other foreign influences at 
work, but rather by what might be called underground 
channels. The connexion of Palestine with Babylonia 


12 


SURVEY OF CONDITIONS 


and the East, which goes back to immemorial antiquity, 
had been revived and deepened by the Captivity. It 
was kept up by intercourse with the Jews who remained 
in those regions. But whether or not they had come 
precisely in this way, there can be no doubt that 
Oriental, and indeed specifically Persian influences were 
present in the sect of the Essenes. The ceremonial 
washings, and the reverence paid to the sun, can 
hardly have had any other origin. The asceticism and 
community of goods have a Pythagorean cast, and may 
have come from Greece by way of Egypt, while the 
rejection of sacrifice and what we know of the specu¬ 
lative tendencies of the Essenes may well be native to 
the soil of Palestine. The Essene settlements were 
congregated near the Dead Sea. 

B. Internal Conditions: the State of Religious 
Thought and Life. 

§ 7 . General Conditions. — To describe justly the state 
of Judaism in the time of Christ is a difficult and 
delicate thing. It is too apt to seem like an indictment 
of the Judaism of nineteen centuries, which not only 
on general grounds, but specially in view of the 
attitude of some Jewish apologists of the present day, 
a Christian theologian will be loth to bring. He will 
desire to make all the allowances that can rightly be 
made, and to state all the evidence (so far as he knows 
it) for as well as against. But at the same time he 
must not gloss over real faults and defects, without a 
statement of which Christianity itself can be but imper¬ 
fectly understood. 


RELIGIOUS THOUGHT AND LIFE 


13 


Truth does not, as a rule, lie in compromises. And 
ts interests will be perhaps best served if we set down 
without reserve both the darker and the brighter sides, 
only asking the reader to remember while he has the 
one before him, that the other is also there. That we 
attempt this difficult task at all is due to no wanton 
assumption of a right to judge, but to the unavoidable 
necessity that what is so intimately bound up with 
history should be seen in the full light which history 
throws upon it. 

(a) The Darker Side of the Contemporary Judaism. — As 
we look broadly at the religious condition of Pales¬ 
tine in the time of our Lord, there can be little doubt 
that it was in need of a drastic reformation. This is 
the impression inevitably conveyed by the Gospels, and 
by the searching criticisms of St. Paul. Nor is it 
belied by the witness of Josephus, and in particular by 
the outbreak of untamed passion, with the horrors to 
which it gave rise, in the Jewish War. And although 
it may be easy to make a selection from the Talmud of 
sayings of a different character, it can hardly be ques¬ 
tioned that the same source supplies proof enough 
that the denunciations of the Gospels were not without 
foundation. There is too evident a connexion between 
the inherent principles of Judaism and the defects 
charged against it to permit us to regard these as 
devoid of truth. 

(i.) The idea of God was perhaps the strongest side 
of Judaism, but it was too exclusively transcendent. 
It had no adequate means of spanning the gulf between 
God and man. The faults of Judaism were those of 
Deism. It had one tender place, the love of Jehovah for 


SURVEY OF CONDITIONS 


14 

Israel. But this fell some way short of the Christian 
idea of the Father in heaven, the God who not only 
loves a single people, but whose essence is love. 
Judaism also largely wanted the mystical element 
which has played such an important part in Christi¬ 
anity. The Johannean allegory of the Vine and the 
Branches, which agrees so closely with the teaching 
of St. Paul, the whole conception of immanent divine 
forces circulating through the organism, has no true 
analogy in it.* (ii.) But the most disastrous feature of 
Rabbinical Judaism was its identification of morality 
with obedience to written law. ‘ Duty, goodness, 
piety, — all these are to the Jew equivalent terms. 
They are mere synonyms for the same conception — the 
fulfilment of the law. A man therefore is good who 
knows the law and obeys it; a man is wicked who is 
ignorant of it and transgresses it ’ (Montefiore, Hibbert 
Lectures , p. 479). This identification of morality with 
law led to a number of serious evils, (iii.) Law can 
deal only with overt action. Hence there was an 
inevitable tendency to restrict the field of morals to 
overt action. Motive was comparatively disregarded. 
It is doubtless true that the Rabbis frequently insist 
on rightness of motive. A religion which in its Sacred 
Books included the Prophets as well as the Law could 
not do otherwise. But the legal conception was too 
deeply ingrained not to tell its tale. If it had not been 
so, there would have been no need for the Sermon on 
the Mount; and the address, ‘ Scribes and Pharisees, 

* The comparison of Israel to a vine is not unknown to Judaism, 
but in a wholly different application (see Wunsche, Erlaut . d. 
Evang. on Jn 15 1 ). 


RELIGIOUS THOUGHT AND LIFE 


15 


hypocrites,’ would have had no point, (iv.) Another 
consequence of the stress laid on overt acts was the 
development of an elaborate doctrine of salvation by 
works. We need not suppose that this doctrine was 
universally held and always consciously acted upon; 
but it cannot be denied that there was in Judaism a 
widespread opinion that might be expressed in the 
terms, ‘ so much keeping of the law, so much merit ’; 
and the idea of a ‘treasure of merit,’ which each man 
stores up for himself, is constantly met with, (v.) In 
one sense the keeping of the law was very hard. The 
labours of the scribes had added to the original and 
primary laws an immense mass of inferential law, 
which was placed on the same footing of authority. 
This portentous accumulation of precepts was a 
burden ‘grievous to be borne.’ (vi.) Not only so, 
but a great part of this additional law was bad law. 
It was law inferred by a faulty system of exegesis. 
Even where the exegesis was bond fide , it was in a 
large proportion of cases unreal and artificial. But 
there was a great temptation to dishonesty, for which 
the way was left open by the exaggerated stress laid on 
acts, and the comparative ignoring of motive. In the 
dead level of "written law the relative degrees of obliga¬ 
tion were disregarded. Hence there were a number of 
precepts which were positively immoral ( e.g . Corban, 
Mk 7 U12 ||). (vii.) A further defect in the legal con¬ 
ception of religion was its intellectualism. The Talmud 
bears witness to what is little less than an idolatry of 
learning, and that, we must remember, Rabbinical 
learning. With religion converted into science, and 
the science in great part no science, we may well say, 


16 SURVEY OF CONDITIONS 

‘ If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is 
the darkness ! ’ The. Scholasticism of the Middle Ages 
had no such unchallenged supremacy; it was not the 
one all-pervading ideal, (viii.) For the mass of the 
population the double law, traditional as well as 
original, could not but be a burden. The accumula¬ 
tion of precepts not possessed of moral value is always 
a thing to be deprecated. And however much we may 
allow for the fact that the observance of all these 
precepts was not expected of every one, there still 
remained enough to be a real incubus. And yet, on 
the other hand, the performance of the full Pharisaic 
standard was not so very difficult for persons of leisure, 
who deliberately made up their minds to it. It did 
not mean, or at least it might be understood as not 
meaning, more than a life mechanically regulated. 
But then it is easy to see that the existence of this 
class, consciously setting itself above its neighbours, 
and able, without any excessive strain, to make good 
its pretentions, must have inevitably engendered a 
feeling of self-righteousness or spiritual pride. The 
parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Lk i8 11-13 ) 
must needs have been typical, (ix.) What the Pharisee 
was to the ordinary Jew, that the Jew was to the rest 
of mankind. However politically inferior, the Jew 
never lost his pride of race, and with him this pride of 
race was a pride of religious privilege. The Zealot 
sought to translate this into political domination, but 
the Pharisee was content to retire into the fortress of 
his inner consciousness, from which he could look with 
equanimity at the rise and fall of secular powers, 
(x.) This particular form of pride had a tendency to 


RELIGIOUS THOUGHT AND LIFE I 1 / 

aggravate itself as time went on. ‘To make a fence 
round the law ’ was a fundamental principle of Judaism. 
And in a like spirit the privileged people was tempted 
to make a fence round itself, and to dwell apart among 
the nations. Institutions which had had for their 
object to keep the nation clear of idolatry, were ex¬ 
tended when the dangers of idolatry were past, until it 
required a revolution to say with St. Paul, ‘ There is 
neither Jew nor Greek.’ (xi.) Worst and most dis¬ 
astrous of all was the tendency to fall back upon 
national privilege as a substitute for real reformation of 
life. We can see alike from the Gospels and from St. 
Paul how constantly the Jews had upon their lips, 
‘We have Abraham to our father’ (Lk 3 s , Jn 8 s3 - 39 , 
Ro 2 17 " 20 ). It is admitted that ‘the Jews were some¬ 
what too confident of their assured participation in the 
blessedness of eternal life; all Israelites, except very 
exceptional and determined sinners, were believed to 
have their share in it ’ (Montefiore, Hibb. Led. p. 482). 

(/?) The Brighter Side of the Contemporary Juda¬ 
ism .— The above is a long and a serious catalogue of 
charges, partly resting upon the logic of the creed, but 
also too much borne out by positive testimony. It 
seems conclusively to prove that not only reformation, 
but a thoroughgoing reformation, was needed. 

And yet there is another side which the Christian 
teacher ought to emphasize more fully than it has been 
the custom to do. 

(i.) In the first place, we have to remember that 
Judaism is professedly the religion of the OT. It is 
based upon a Book which includes the Prophets and 
the Psalms (to use the familiar description a potiori 


2 


18 SURVEY OF CONDITIONS 

parte ) as well as the Law. And however much 
Judaism proper gave precedence to the Law, it could 
not forget the other parts of the volume, or run wholly 
counter to their spirit. It is not too much to say that 
even in the Talmud we can see at every turn how the 
spirit of legalism was corrected by an influence which 
is ultimately derived from what are rightly called the 
evangelical portions of OT. We shall see to what an 
extent Christianity itself is a direct development of 
these. 

(ii.) The evidence of NT, severe as it is upon the 
whole, yet is not all of one tenor. Its pages are 
sprinkled over with Jewish characters, who are men¬ 
tioned in terms of praise: Zacharias and Elisabeth, 
Simeon and Anna, Nathanael, Nicodemus, and Joseph 
of Arimathaea, the young ruler, and the scribe who was 
pronounced to be ‘ not far from the kingdom of God 9 
(Mk 12 34 ). We must not forget that there are parts 
of NT itself which in recent years have been claimed 
by Christian scholars as thinly veneered products of 
Judaism (Ep. of James, Apoc.). Whatever we may 
think of these particular instances, there are others 
(such as Didache and the Testaments of the Twelve 
Patriarchs') in which it is highly probable that a Jewish 
original has been adapted to Christian purposes. And 
our present investigation will bring before us many 
examples in which, while Christianity corrects Jewish 
teaching, it nevertheless takes its start from it, and 
that not only from the purer original, but in its con¬ 
temporary form. 

(iii.) The panegyrists of the Talmud have at least 
right on their side to this extent, that single sayings 


RELIGIOUS THOUGHT AND LIFE 


19 


can frequently be quoted from it in disproof of the 
sweeping allegations brought against it by its assailants. 
There are grains of fine wheat among its chaff. Some 
of these are referred, on what seems to be good autho¬ 
rity, to a time anterior to the coming of Christ. The 
‘ golden rule’ is attributed to Hillel. The story is that 
when Shammai drove away an inquirer who desired to 
be taught the whole Torah while he stood on one foot, 
the man went to Hillel, who said: ‘ What is hateful to 
thyself do not to thy fellow; this is the whole To¬ 
rah, and the rest is commentary’ (Taylor, Pirqe Aboth, 
p. 37). Another great saying is ascribed to Antigonus 
of Soko: ‘ Be not as slaves that minister to the lord with 
a view to receive recompense; but be as slaves that 
minister to the lord without a view to receive recom¬ 
pense ; and let the fear of Heaven be upon you ’ (ib. 
p. 27). There is a fair number of such sayings. If we 
take the treatise from which the last is directly quoted 
we shall see in it what is probably not an unfair repre¬ 
sentation of the better Judaism in the time of Christ, 
with its weaknesses sufficiently indicated, but with 
something also of its strength. 

(iv.) It is right also to bear in mind that the Judaism 
of this date had no lack of enthusiasts and martyrs. 
Akiba in particular, though a Jew of the Jews, cannot 
but command our admiration (see Taylor, ut sup. 
p. 67 ff.). And in a different category his fortitude is 
matched by the mitis sapientia of Hillel, of whom it was 
said that his gentleness brought men ‘nigh under the 
wings of the Shekinah ’ (ib. p. 37). 

(v.) A favourable impression on the whole is given 
by the numerous pseudepigraphic works, which belong 


20 


SURVEY OF CONDITIONS 


in the main to the two centuries on each side of the 
Christian era. The oldest parts of the Book of Enoch 
may possibly be earlier, just as some outlying members 
of the Baruch literature are probably later. The most 
typical writings are the Book of Enoch and the Psalms 
of Solomon (which can be dated with tolerable cer¬ 
tainty b.c. 70-40), the Book of Jubilees and the As¬ 
sumption of Moses (which may be taken as roughly 
contemporary with the founding of Christianity), and 
the Fourth Book of Ezra (2 Es) and the Apoc. of 
Baruch, both after the fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. 
These writings show in varying degrees most of the 
characteristic infirmities of Judaism, but they also 
show its nobler features in a way which sometimes, 
and especially in the two latest works, throws the 
infirmities into the shade.* 

It is a moot point how far the pseudepigrapha can be taken as 
representative of the main currents of Judaism. Montefiore, 
writing in 1892, says, ‘It must be remembered that the apocalyptic 
writings lie for the most part outside the line of the purest Jewish 
development, and often present but the fringe or excrescence, 
and not the real substance of the dominating religious thought ’ 
(Hibb. Led. p. 467). On the other hand, Charles has no difficulty 
in assigning the different portions to recognized party divisions in 
Judaism. Schiirer in like manner describes their standpoint as 
that of ‘ correct Judaism,’ adding, however, that they are ‘ not 
products of the school, but of free religious individuality ’ (HJP 
ill. ii. 49). Similarly, Baldensperger speaks of 4 Ezra and Baruch 
as free from the spirit of casuistry, and not ‘ absorbed in the 
Halachic rules’ (p. 35, ed. 1). This verdict would apply in some 


* For a closer and more exact but still tentative analysis and dating, 
the reader may be referred to the editions by R. H. Charles of Enoch 
(1893), Secrets of Enoch and Apoc. of Baruch (1896), Assumption of 
Moses (1897) ; or for a judicious representation of average opinion, to 
Schiirer, HJP II. iii. 54 ff. 



RELIGIOUS THOUGHT AND LIFE 


21 


degree to this class of literature generally. It is perhaps in the 
main of provincial origin, or at least somewhat outside the beaten 
tracks of Jewish teaching. The Pss. of Solomon and Bk. of 
Jubilees would be nearest to these. It is very probable that 4 Ezr 
and Apoc. Bar were directly affected by the ferment of thought 
caused by the birth of Christianity. 

When we endeavour to put together the impressions 
which we derive from these various sources, we may 
perhaps say that the outcome of them is that Judaism 
at the Christian era had all the outer framework of a 
sound religion if only the filling in had been different. 
The Jew knew better than any of his contemporaries in 
Greece or Rome or in the East what religion was. He 
had a truer conception of God, and of the duty of man 
towards God; but on the first head he had much still 
to learn, and on the second he had many faults to be 
corrected in the working out of detail. 

The Jew had at least a profound seriousness on the 
subject of religion. Where this was wanting, the man 
was no true Jew. And, even allowing for all the ex¬ 
ternal influences which told against this, there was 
among the Jews probably less of professed atheism, 
indifference, levity, than there has ever been in any 
other society, ancient or modern. The Jew had also 
an intense feeling of loyalty to this society. His love of 
what we should call his Church rose to a passion. It 
is this which makes the apocalypses which followed the 
fall of Jerusalem so pathetic. The faith of men has 
probably seldom received a shock so severe. The au¬ 
thors of these apocalypses feel the shock to the 
uttermost. They grope about anxiously to find the 
meaning of God’s mysterious dealings; but their faith 
in Him is unshaken. They are divided between 


22 


SURVEY OF CONDITIONS 


passionate grief and resignation: ‘ Two things vehe¬ 
mently constrain me: for I cannot resist thee, and my 
soul, moreover, cannot behold the evils of my mother’ 
(Apoc. Bar 3 s ). 

§ 8. The Special Seed-plot of Christianity . — In general 
terms it may be said that when we seek for affinities to 
Christianity we find more of them the farther we recede 
from the centre of official Judaism. The one thing to 
which Christianity is most opposed is the hard, dry, 
casuistic legalism of the Pharisee. If we are right in 
thinking of the apocalyptic literature as in the main 
provincial, we shall not be surprised to find the points 
of contact with it become more numerous. Wherever 
there are traces of a fresher and deeper study of the 
Psalms and Prophets, there we have a natural kinship 
for the Christian spirit. 

Now there is one class among whom this continuity 
with Psalms and Prophets is specially marked. It has 
been observed * that there is a group of Psalms (of 
which perhaps 9. 10. 22. 25. 35. 40. 69. 109 are the 
most prominent) in which the words translated in EV 
‘poor,’ ‘needy,’ ‘humble,’ ‘meek’ are of specially 
frequent occurrence. It appears that these words have 
acquired a moral meaning. From meaning originally 
those who are ‘ afflicted ’ or ‘ oppressed ’ (by men), they 
have come to mean those who in their oppression have 
drawn nearer to God and leave their cause in His hands. 
They are the pious Israelites who suffer from the 
tyranny of the heathen or of their worldly countrymen, 

* See esp. Rahlfs, UP und up in den Psalmen, Gottingen, 1892 ; and 
Driver, Parallel Psalter , Oxf. 1898, Glossary, s.v. ‘poor.’ 


THE SPECIAL SEED-PLOT OF CHRISTIANITY 23 

and who refuse to assert themselves, but accept in a 
humble spirit the chastening sent by God. As there 
were many such in every period of the history of Israel, 
they might be said to form a class. Now there is other 
evidence that this class still existed at the Christian era. 
They are the mansueti et quiescentes of 4 Ezr (2 Es) n 42 . 
They are just the class indicated in Ps-Sol 5 13f - ‘ Who 
is the hope of the needy and the poor beside thee, O 
Lord ? And thou wilt hearken: for who is gracious 
and gentle but thou? Thou makest glad the heart of 
the humble by opening thine hand in mercy.’ (Com¬ 
pare also the reff. in Ryle and James, p. 48, and Index, 
s.v. 7ttcoxos). The special NT designation is 7 tt(oxoI 
tco 7 tv€v/jl£ltl (Mt 5 3 ). And a better expression of the 
spirit in question could not easily be found than the 
Magnificat (Lk i 46 ' 55 ). It is clear that the group which 
appears in Lk i. 2, not only Joseph and Mary, but 
Zacharias and Elisabeth, Simeon and Anna, all answer 
to this description. They are those who look for ‘ the 
consolation of Israel,’ ‘ the redemption of Israel ’ (Lk 
2 25 - “), and who looked for it rather by fasting and 
prayer than by any haste to grasp the sword. There 
was no organized party, no concerted policy; but we 
cannot doubt that there were many devout souls 
scattered throughout the country, and in just the kind 
of distribution which the chapters Lk 1. 2 would 
suggest, some for shorter or longer periods making 
their way to Jerusalem, but the greater number dis¬ 
persed over such secluded districts as the ‘highlands’ 
(rj opavrjy Lk i 39 ) of Judaea and Galilee. 

Here was the class which seemed, as it were, specially 
prepared to receive a new spiritual impulse and to take 


24 


SURVEY OF CONDITIONS 


up a great movement of reformation. And other ten¬ 
dencies were in the air which were ready to contribute 
to the spread of such a movement when it came. The 
labours of the scribes had not been all wasted. There 
is a good example in Mk 12 32 ' 34 — the happy combination 
of Dt 4 39 with Lv 19 18 — which shows that even among 
the Rabbis there were some who were feeling their way 
towards the more penetrating teaching of Jesus. 

One great transition had been made since Ezk 18. 
The value of the individual soul was by this time fully 
realized. The old merging of the individual in the 
family and the clan had been fully left behind. Another 
germ contained in the teaching of the prophets had 
been developed. We can see from the case of the 
Essenes that men’s minds were being prepared for the 
abolition of animal sacrifices, and along with the aboli¬ 
tion of sacrifice for an end to the localized worship of 
the temple. The great extension of the synagogue 
services would contribute to the same result. 

The proselytizing zeal which the latter Judaism had 
displayed (Mt 23 15 ) operated in several ways. It was a 
step in the direction of the ultimate evangelizing of the 
Gentiles. It had created a class in which the liberal 
influences of Graeco-Roman education prevented the 
purer principles of OT from lapsing into Judaic narrow¬ 
ness and formalism, and in which it was therefore 
natural that Christianity should strike root. We meet 
with specimens of this class in the Gospels (Lk 
Mk 15 39 ||) as well as in the Acts. And not only was 
there created a class of recipients for the gospel, but in 
the effort to meet the demands of these converts from 
paganism there was a tendency to tone down and throw 


THE MESSIANIC EXPECTATION 


25 


into the background the more repellent features of 
Judaism. If it is true, as it probably is, that the 
so-called Didache is a Christian enlargement of what 
was originally a Jewish manual for proselytes, it would 
be a good illustration of this process. 

§ 9 . The Messianic Expectation .— But by far the most 
important of all the preparations for the gospel, nega¬ 
tive as well as positive, both as demanding correction 
and as leading up to fulfilment, was the growth of the 
Messianic expectation, with the group of doctrines 
which went along with it. 

The more the stress of the times was felt, and the 
more hopeless it seemed that any ordinary development 
of events could rescue the Jewish people from its 
oppressors, the more were its hopes thrown into the 
future and based upon the direct intervention of God. 
The starting-point of these hopes was the great pro¬ 
phecy in Dn 7. The world empires, one succeeding 
another, and all tyrannizing over the Chosen People, 
were to be judged, and Israel at last was to enter on 
the dominion reserved for it. The figure of the Son of 
Man who appears before the Ancient of days (Dn 7 13f ) 
was not in the first instance a person : it was a collec¬ 
tive expression, equivalent to the ‘saints of the Most 
High ’ in v. 18 . The form of a ‘ man ’ is taken in con- 
trast to the ‘ beasts,’ which represent in the context the 
dynasties of the oppressors. In conflict with the last 
of these Israel is at first to be hard pressed, but God 
Himself will interpose by an act of divine judgment; 
the enemy will be crushed, and there will be given to 
Israel a kingdom which is universal and eternal. 


2 6 


SURVEY OF CONDITIONS 


This dominion is Israel’s by right. It had not only 
been repeatedly promised from Abraham onwards, but 
it had been earned as a matter of desert. It was the 
complement of Israel’s possession of the law. By its 
observance of the law Israel had acquired a right which 
no other nation could acquire. In the compact or 
covenant between Israel and Jehovah, Israel was doing 
its part, and it remained for God to do His. 

The grand catastrophe by which this was to be 
brought about, the 7r€/3i7reVeia in the tragedy of the 
nations, was to culminate in an act of judgment. The 
day of the Lord, conceived of by the prophets at first 
as a decisive battle in which God intervenes, gives place 
to a judicial act in which those who have oppressed 
His people are called to account, and the parts of 
oppressor and oppressed are reversed. To complete 
the justice of the case, those of the saints who have 
died in the times of distress must not be left out. There 
must be a resurrection. And the resurrection will 

usher in for them a state of lasting joy and felicity. 

Nature would share with man. There would be a 
‘ new heaven and a new earth.’ The tendency was to 
conceive of these somewhat literally and materially. 
Elaborate but at the same time prosaic pictures are 
given of the inexhaustible plenty which the saints (i.e. 
Israel as a people) are to enjoy. Their bliss is also 
sometimes compared to a great feast (cf. Lk 14 15 ). 

In the Book of Daniel, and, as it would seem for 

some time afterwards, the reign of the saints is con¬ 

ceived impersonally. It is the dominion of Israel, the 
Chosen People. But gradually there arises a tendency 
to go back to a more primitive stage of prophecy, and 


THE MESSIANIC EXPECTATION 


2 7 


to see the kingdom as concentrated in the person of its 
King: there is a personal Messiah. This is conspicu¬ 
ously the case in the Psalms of Solomon (17. 18), the 
date of which is fixed between b.c. 70-40. The right¬ 
eous King who is to rule over the nations is the Davidic 
King of the elder prophets. A personal King is also 
implied in Orac. Sibyll. iii. 49 f., 652-656. In the 
middle section of the Book of Enoch (chs. 37-71), which 
is also probably pre-Christian, the title ‘ Son of Man ’ 
is taken up from Daniel and distinctly identified with 
a person. Here, too, as in Orac. Sibyll. iii. 286, and 
Apoc. Bar J2 2 ~ 6 , the Messiah is not only King but 
Judge (cf. Enoch 45 s 62 8 " 13 69™). The execution of 
the judgment is handed over to Him by God. There 
is not absolute unity of view. Sometimes judgment is 
carried out by the Messiah, sometimes by God Himself 
( e.g. Enoch 9o 13-27 , Ass. Mos. io 3 " 10 ). There is also 
some diversity as to the extent to which the resurrec¬ 
tion is to be of the righteous, of Israel, or of all 
mankind. One view is that there are to be two resur¬ 
rections, with a millennial reign between them. 

The Sadducees held aloof from the Messianic ex¬ 
pectation to which they were not clearly compelled by 
the few allusions in the Pentateuch, and which would 
have been only a disturbing element in their policy of 
making the best — for themselves — of things as they 
were. Some of the scribes must have also done what 
they could to discourage the belief. It is well known 
that Hillel is said to have asserted that the prophecies 
of the Messiah were fulfilled in Hezekiah. But there is 
abundant evidence that in spite of this the expectation 
was widely diffused. It must have been constantly 


2 8 


SURVEY OF CONDITIONS 


preached in the synagogues of Palestine, and it cer¬ 
tainly took a strong hold of the popular mind. It was 
differently received and understood by different hearers. 
With some quiet God-fearing souls, ‘ poor in spirit ’ 
like those who come before us at the beginning of the 
evangelical narrative in Lk i. 2, it was cherished 
secretly with awed and wistful longing (Lk 2 25,88 ). 
With the mass of the population, as well teachers as 
taught, it took its place only too easily among the 
body of hard, narrow, materialized beliefs w'hich were 
so characteristic of the time — a visible earthly kingdom 
reserved for Israel as its right, and carrying with it 
domination over other nations, with such unlimited 
command of enjoyment as a sovereign people might 
expect under conditions specially created for its benefit: 
all this introduced by supernatural means, wielded by 
One who is variously called ‘ Messiah ’ or ‘ Anointed,’ 
‘ the righteous King,’ ‘ the Elect ’ or ‘ Son of Man,’ 
not (if the question were pressed) in the strict sense 
God, though endowed by God with plenary powers, a 
fit Head for the Chosen People in its golden age, which 
was at last about to begin. And scattered among 
these masses there were many — some banded together 
under the name of Zealots, and thousands more who 
were ready to join them at the first signal — men not 
of dreams but of action, who were only waiting for the 
leader and the hour to put their hand to the sword 
and rise in revolt against the hated foreigners who 
oppressed them, prepared to take a fearful ven¬ 
geance, and proud in the thought that in doing so 
they would be ‘ doing God service ’ and establishing 
His kingdom. 


THE MESSIANIC EXPECTATION 


29 


Literature. — Vast stores of ordered material are contained in 
Schiirer’s great work originally called Neutest. Zeitgeschichte ( NTZG ), 
and now as in the Eng. tr., Hist, of the Jewish People in the Time of 
Jesus Christ (HJP ). The Eng. tr. from the 2nd much enlarged ed. 
came out in 1885-90; a 3rd ed., still further enlarged, has b^gun to 
appear (vols. ii. and iii., 1898). The late Dr. Edersheim’s Life and 
Times of Jesus the Messiah (revised eds. from 1886) is also full of illus¬ 
trative matter. Other works by the same author may also be con¬ 
sulted; esp. History of the Jewish Nation after the Destruction of 
Jerusalem under Titus (2nd ed. carefully revised by H. A. White, 
1896). Another very useful work is Weber’s System d. altsynagog. 
Palast. Theol ., now called JiidischeTheologie (2nd ed., somewhat im¬ 
proved, 1897). As there is always a danger of confusing Jewish teaching 
of very different dates, this book should be checked as far as possi¬ 
ble by comparison with the Pseudepigrapha , Philo, NT, and the early 
Talmudic work Pirqe Aboth (Sayings of the Jezuish Fathers , ed. Taylor, 
1877, and enlarged in 1897). To these authorities should now be 
added G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu (Bd. i. 1898 fin.\ Eng. tr., The 
Words of Jesus, T. & T. Clark, 1902), the most critical and scientific 
examination of the leading conceptions of the Gospels that has yet 
appeared. 

Mention may be made among older works of Drummond’s Jewish 
Messiah (1877) and Stanton’s Jewish and Christian Messiah (1887). 
Hausrath’s NT Tunes (Eng. tr. 1878-80) is picturesquely written, but 
far less trustworthy than Schiirer; and Wiinsche’s Neue Beitrage z. 
Erlauterung d. Ew. (1878) is much criticized. Montefiore’s Hibbert 
Lectures (1892) and arts, in JQR form an attractive apology for 
Judaism. 

















CHAPTER III. 


THE EARLY MINISTRY. 

§ 10 . We shall now be in a position to approach the 
study of the Public Ministry of our Lord in the manner 
indicated at the outset. We shall be able to place 
ourselves at the standpoint of a sympathetic spectator. 
We shall have some rough conception of the kind of 
ideas which would be in his mind, and of the kind of 
conditions which he would see around him. We shall 
thus be able to follow the course of the Public Ministry 
with a certain amount of intelligence. We do not 
as yet attempt to penetrate the whole of its secret. 
Broadly speaking, we suppose ourselves to see what 
a privileged spectator might be expected to see, and 
no more. We reserve until a later stage the introduc¬ 
tion of those special details of illuminative knowledge 
which, as a matter of history, were not accessible to 
the first spectators, but were only disclosed after a 
time. But we hold ourselves at liberty to collect and 
group the facts which were not removed from the 
cognizance of a spectator, in any way that may be most 
convenient to secure clearness of presentation. 

3i 


32 


THE EARLY MINISTRY 


It may be well to avail ourselves of this freedom at 
once, before giving an outline of the ministry, to state 
summarily certain conclusions which seem to arise out of 
the study of it. We shall hold the threads in our minds 
more firmly if we see to what results they are tending. 

The anticipated conclusions, then, are these: (i.) 
From the very first (i.e. from the Baptism) our 
Lord had the full consciousness of the Messiah, and 
the full determination to found the Kingdom of God 
upon earth, (ii.) From the very first He had also 
the deliberate intention of transforming the current idea 
of the Kingdom, (iii.) In order to make this trans¬ 
formation effective, it was necessary to begin with the 
idea of the Kingdom and not of the King. In other 
words, the personal Messianic claim had to be kept in 
the background. But (iv.) the transformation of the 
idea was only a preliminary to the permanent estab¬ 
lishment of the Kingdom; and this establishment 
turned round the Person of the Messiah. So that in 
the end the history of the Kingdom centres in the 
personal history of the King. 

With so much of preface we proceed to give an 
outline of the Public Ministry according to the periods 
into which it seems to fall. 

A. Preliminary Period: from the Baptism to the Call 
of the Leading Apostles.* 

Scene. — Mainly in Judaea, but in part also Galilee. 

Time. — Winter a.d. 26 to a few weeks after Passover A.D. 27. 

Mt 31-411, Mk 1 ns, Lk 31-413, j n i 6 - 4 & 4 . 


* The choice of termini a quo and ad que?n is sometimes inclusive 
and sometimes not inclusive. The most salient points are chosen. 
Here the term, ad quern is not inclusive. 



ANTICIPATORY SURVEY 33 

B . First Active or Constructive Period: the Founding of 
the Kingdom. 

Scene. — Mainly in Galilee, but also partly in Jerusalem. 

Time. — From about Pentecost a.d. 27 to shortly before Passover 
A.D. 28 . 

Mt 4 13 -i 3 53 > Mk ii 4 _ 6 i 3 , Lk 414-96, j n 5. 

C. Middle or Culminating Period of the Active Min¬ 
istry. 

Scene. — Galilee. 

Time. — Passover to shortly before Tabernacles a.d. 28. 

Mt 14I-18 35 , Mk 614 - 9 & 0 , Lk 97-50, j n . 5. 

D . Close of the Active Period: the Messianic Crisis in 
View. 

Scene. — Judsea (Jn 7i° ff - n 54 ) and Peraea (Mk ioi||, Jn 10 40 ). 

Time. —Tabernacles a.d. 28 to Passover a.d. 29. 

Mt I9 1— 20 34 , Mk 10I- 52 , Lk 951 -I 9 28 (for the most part not in 
chronological order), Jn 7I-11 57 . 

E. The Messianic Crisis: the Triumphal Entry, the Last 
Teaching, Passion, Death, Resurrection, Ascension. 

Scene. — Mainly in Jerusalem. 

Time. — Six days before Passover to ten days before Pentecost 
a.d. 29. 

Mt 21I-28 20 , Mk ni-16 8 [16 9 - 20 ], Lk i9 29 -24 52 , Jn I2!-2I 23 . 

The chronology adopted in this article, not as certain, 
but as on the whole the best of current systems, is in 
substantial agreement with that of the art. Chronology 
of the New Testament. It differs from that in the 
writer’s first work, The Authorship and Historical 
Character of the Fourth Gospel (London, 1872), by 
placing the Crucifixion in the year a.d. 29 rather than 
a.d. 30. 

A. Preliminary Period : from the Baptism to the 
Call of the Leading Apostles 

§ 11 . Scene. — Mainly Judaea, but in part also Galilee. 

3 


34 


THE EARLY MINISTRY 


Time. — Winter a.d. 26 to a few weeks after Pass- 
over A.D. 27. 

Mt 3 1 -4 11 , Mk i 1 - 13 , Lk 3 1 - 4 13 , Jn i 6 - 4 m . 

The Public Ministry of our Lord begins with 
His Baptism. (i.) This will therefore be the 
first point to attract our attention, and some 
explanation will be needed as to the Baptist and 
his mission, (ii.) Along with the Baptism we 
must needs take the Temptation, as a glimpse 
vouchsafed by Jesus Himself, and early and 
widely published, of the principles which were to 
determine the nature of His Ministry, (iii.) After 
this will come the first preliminary gathering of 
a few loosely attached followers, and the first 
miracle at Cana in Galilee, (iv.) Then the visit 
to Jerusalem for the Passover of the year 27, with 
a short stay in the South, (v.) Then we have a 
return to Galilee, followed by a brief period of 
partial retirement, leading up to the Call of the 
four chief apostles. 

Allusions, more or less explicit, to the Baptism 
and to the ministry of John, are found in all four 
Gospels; the other events of this period are 
recorded only in the fourth — unless we are to 
identify the Healing of the Nobleman’s Son 
(Jn 4 4Wi4 ) with that of the Centurion’s Servant 
(Mt 8 5 - 13 , Lk 7 1 - 10 ). 


§ 12 . i. The Baptist and the Baptism. — Our survey of 
contemporary Judaism has shown us that 1 the kingdom 
of God ’ was a phrase in almost every man’s mouth. 
It meant, in point of fact, to the majority ‘ a kingdom 


PRELIMINARY PERIOD 


35 


for Israel ’ far more than a ‘ kingdom of God.’ But 
though in a more or less indefinite sense it was under¬ 
stood to be near, no time had as yet been actually 
announced for it. Men were on the watch, but rather 
for the signs of the coming than for the actual coming 
itself. 

We are not surprised, therefore, to find that the 
news that a prophet had appeared who preached the 
approaching coming of the Messiah caused a wide-' 
spread excitement.* The aspect of this coming, which 
he put in the forefront, was the aspect of judgment. 
The axe was laid to the root of the trees, and the fruit¬ 
less tree would be burned (Mt 3 10 , Lk 3 s ). 

The prophet who made this announcement bore the 
name of John. The scene of his preaching was the 
wilderness of Judaea, near the lower course of the Jor¬ 
dan where it fell into the Dead Sea. In this wilder¬ 
ness he had lived in solitude for some time before he 
began his prophetic mission. His whole appearance 
was sternly ascetic. He seems to have adopted de¬ 
liberately a garb and a manner of life resembling those 
of Elijah, probably not so much in anticipation of the 
verdict which was to be afterwards passed upon him 
(Mt 11 14 ) as because he took Elijah for his model. 

His character and his mission alike were severely 
simple. His soul was possessed with a strong con¬ 
viction, wrought in him in precisely the same manner 
in which such convictions were wrought in the prophets 

* Stress can hardly be laid on the form of announcement in Mt 
3 2 , which would make the Baptist anticipate exactly the announce¬ 
ment of Jesus. This would seem to be due to the editor. The 
older version describes the Baptist as ‘ preaching a baptism of repent¬ 
ance for remission of sins ’ (Mk I 4 ). 


36 


THE EARLY MINISTRY 


of the OT, that a great crisis was near at hand. 
What lay beyond was dim, and, so far as the prophet 
had a definite picture before him, it was probably not 
very different from that which presented itself to his 
countrymen. But he saw clearly that the crisis would 
take the form of a judgment, and that there would be 
a judge, a personal judge, with a mission vastly greater 
than his own. At the same time, it is also borne in 
upon him that the preparation required by this coming 
judgment is a moral reformation. This he sees in¬ 
tensely; and again he goes back behind the teaching 
of his day to that of the ancient prophets. That which 
is required is not merely a stricter performance of the 
law, but a deep inward change — a change spontane¬ 
ously expressing itself in right action. 

Once more, and indeed very conspicuously, he made 
good his resemblance to the older prophets by clothing 
this leading idea of his in an expressive symbolical 
act. The rumour of him brought the people to him in 
crowds; and one by one, as they confessed to him their 
sins and convinced him of the reality of their repent¬ 
ance, he took them down into the running waters of 
the Jordan ; he made them plunge in or let the waters 
close over their heads, and then he led them out again 
with the consciousness that they had left their sinful 
past behind them, and that they were pledged to a 
new life. 

The process was called ‘ Baptism ’; and John, from 
the fact that it constituted the main outward expression 
of his mission, was called ‘the Baptist.’ The act bore 
a certain resemblance to those ceremonial washings 
with which the Jews were familiar enough, and which 


PRELIMINARY PERIOD 


37 


held a specially prominent place in the ritual of the 
Essenes. But it differed from all these in that it was 
an act performed once for all, and not repeated from 
day to day. The lesson of it was that of Jn 13 10 : he 
who was once bathed in this thorough and searching 
fashion did not need to have the act repeated; the effect 
was to last for life. 

The movement took hold especially of the lower and 
what were thought to be the more abandoned classes. 
John was kept fully employed in the work of confessing 
and baptizing, but he did not allow it to be forgotten 
that all this pointed forward to another mission greater 
than his own. The presentiment grew upon him that 
part of his task as prophet was to name this mightier 
successor. And again, after the manner of the older 
prophets, he knew that it would be made manifest to 
him whom he was to name. 

Presently the sign was given. Among those who 
came to be baptized was one who passed for a relative 
of his own, with whom possibly, though perhaps not 
probably, he may have had some intercourse in boyhood 
(cf. Jn i sl ). As with others who before their baptism 
were called upon to confess, so also with this kinsman, 
John had some converse, and, if we may accept what 
is found only in a single narrative,* at first refused to 
baptize Him. His scruples are set aside, but it is not 

* Resch (TU. X. ii. 57), in his later opinion, regards this narra¬ 
tive as belonging to the oldest evangelical document; but the 
passages which he has collected in support of this view might 
quite well be explained as paraphrastic allusions to the canonical 
Matthew. The Gospel according to the Hebrews as used by the 
Ebionites (Epiph. Hcer. xxx. 13) had a similar scene after the 
Baptism of Jesus (Resch, Agrapha, p. 345 f.). 


38 


THE EARLY MINISTRY 


until the actual baptism that the full truth burst upon 
him. Still, the analogy of the older prophecy is main¬ 
tained. A sign is given such as that which Isaiah 
offered to Ahaz (Is 7 11 ). From the Fourth Gospel we 
should gather that it was seen in prophetic vision by 
the Baptist (Jn i 32 " 34 ) ; from the Synoptics we should 
gather that it was seen in like vision by the baptized 
(Mk i 10 , Mt 3 16 ‘he saw’). And to prophetic sight 
was joined also the prophetic hearing of a voice from 
heaven, proclaiming in words that recalled at once 
Ps 2” and Is 42 1 ‘ Thou art my beloved Son, in thee 
I am well pleased.’ 

(a) The Baptist's Hesitation. — The incident of Mt 3 14f - is open 
to some suspicion of being a product (such as might well grow 
up by insensible degrees in the passing of the narrative from 
hand to hand) of the conviction which later became general 
among Christians, that their Master was without sin, and of the 
difficulty which thence arose of associating Him with a baptism 
‘ of repentance.’ We cannot exclude this possibility. But, on 
the other hand, the difficulty is for us, too, a real one, and the 
solution given, while it has nothing under the circumstances 
inconsistent or improbable, is attractive by its very reserve. * To 
fulfil all righteousness ’ = to leave undone nothing which God had 
shown to be His will. In a general movement which embraced 
all the more earnest-minded in the nation, it was right that He 
too should share. It would not follow that the symbolical act of 
Baptism should have precisely the same significance for every one 
who submitted to it. For the main body it denoted a break with 
a sinful past and a new start upon a reformed life. For the 
Messiah it denoted a break simply, the entrance upon a new 
phase in the accomplishment of His mission. It took the place 
with Him of the ‘anointing,’ which marked the assumption of the 
active work to which they were called by the kings and prophets 
of old. This ‘anointing’ was the ‘descent of the Spirit.’ The 
Baptism of the Messiah was Baptism ‘ with the Spirit,’ wherewith 
He was to baptize. The significance of Baptism in His case was 
positive rather than negative. 


PRELIMINARY PERIOD 


39 


(/ 3 ) The Voice from Heaven. — It has been too readily assumed 
by some distinguished writers (eg. Usener) that the oldest version 
of the voice from heaven was in exact agreement with Ps 2 7 ‘Thou 
art my [beloved] Son: this day have I begotten thee.’ In two of 
the three Synoptics the reading is undoubtedly iv aoi [y] ev 86 icrj(ra 
[?7u5-]. It is true, however, that in Lk 3 22 an important group of 
authorities has fycb oh^pov yeylpp-rjKd ire. This is the reading of 
the larger branch of the Western text (D a b c al. codd. nonnull. 
ap. Aug. Juvenc. al.). A similar reading is found in Justin, c. 
Tryph. bis and in other writers, and both readings are combined 
in the Ebionite Gospel as quoted by Epiphanius. [The evidence 
is collected in full by Resch, Agrapha, p. 347 ff.] On the other 
hand, it is by no means certain that in some of these cases the Ps 
is not directly quoted, and in all assimilation to the text of the Ps 
lay very near at hand. Even the Western text of Luke is divided, 
a smaller but very ancient branch (including e) agreeing with the 
mass of the Gr. MSS. There can be little doubt that not only the 
Canonical Gospels, but the ground document on which they are 
based, had the common reading. The competing reading was a 
natural application of Ps 2 7 , and it fell in so readily with views 
which in different forms circulated rather widely in the 2nd cent, 
that we cannot be surprised if it met with a certain amount of adop¬ 
tion. See, further, below. 

(7) Apocryphal Details. —The story of the Baptism underwent 
various apocryphal amplifications and adornments. One of the earliest 
of these is the appearance of a bright light (Codd. Vercell. et San- 
germ. ad Mt 3 15 ; Ev. Ebion. ap. Epiph., Ephraem Syr.) or of a fire 
upon the Jordan (Just. c. Tryph. 88, Prcedicatio Pauli ap. Ps.-Cypr. 
de Rebapt. 17 al.). The most elaborate working up of this kind of 
material is found in the Syriac Baptismal Liturgy of Severus (Resch, 
Agrapha , p. 361 ff.). 

( 5 ) The Synoptic and fohannean Versions. — When a prophet 
began his prophetic career he received clear proof of the reality of 
his call most often through some powerful inner experience or vision 
(eg. Is 6), but also at times through Divine revelation to another 
(eg. 1 K 19 16 ). We may regard the events of the Baptism as a 
Divine authentication of this kind of the Mission of Jesus. But if so, 
there would be nothing incongruous in supposing that this authen¬ 
tication was vouchsafed, both to the Messiah Himself and to the 
Forerunner, just as a similar authentication was vouchsafed to St. 
Paul and to Ananias (Ac 9 3ff - llff ). We are therefore not in any 
way compelled to choose between the Synoptic and Johannean ver- 


40 


THE EARLY MINISTRY 


sions as to the incidence of the supernatural signs. The two versions 
may quite well be thought of as supplementing rather than contradict¬ 
ing each other. 

The Baptism of Jesus undoubtedly marks the be¬ 
ginning of His public ministry. How much more was 
it than this? The Judaizing Ebionites of the 2nd cen¬ 
tury, who never rose above the conception of Christ as 
an inspired prophet, and some Gnostic sects which 
separated the Man Jesus from the H£on Christus, start¬ 
ing from the Synoptic narrative, and combining it with 
Ps 2 7 , dated from the Baptism the union of the human 
and the Divine in Christ in such a way that they are 
sometimes described as making the Baptism a substi¬ 
tute for the supernatural Birth. We can imagine how, to 
those who had the story of the Baptism before them, 
but who had not yet been reached by the tidings of 
those earlier events round which the veil of a sacred 
privacy had been drawn, and which (as we shall see) 
only made their way to general knowledge by slow 
degrees and after some length of time had elapsed, 
should regard the descent of the Holy Ghost as a first 
endowment with Divinity. The fact that it was not till 
then that Jesus began to perform His ‘ mighty works,’ 
would seem to give some colour to the belief. And it 
would be likely enough that a passing phase of Chris¬ 
tian thought, based upon imperfect knowledge, would 
survive in certain limited circles. But the main body of 
the Church did not rest in this contracted view, which 
was really inconsistent with the Christology revealed 
to us in the earliest group of St. Paul’s Epistles. It 
accepted, and, through such leaders as Ignatius of An¬ 
tioch, emphasized strongly the earlier chapters of the 


PRELIMINARY PERIOD 


41 


canonical narrative; and the contents of those chapters 
gave shape to the oldest form (which can hardly be 
later than Ignatius) of the Apostles’ Creed. Already, 
before the 1st century was out, St. John had presented 
what was to be the Catholic interpretation of the rela¬ 
tion of the Baptism to the Godhead of Christ. Far 
back at the very beginning of all beginnings the Divine 
Word had already been face to face with God, and was 
Himself God; so that, when the same Word entered 
into the conditions of humanity, this did not denote 
any loss of Godhead which was inherent and essential. 
Much less could the Godhead of the incarnate Christ 
be supposed to date from the signs which accompanied 
the Baptism. The object of these signs was rather to 
inaugurate the public ministry of the Messiah, that He 
might be ‘ manifested to Israel ’ (Jva (fxivepuOrj tw 'lap., 
Jn i 31 ). Though the Greek is different the idea is the 
same as that in Lk i 80 , where it is said of the Baptist 
himself that he was in the desert ‘ till the day of his 
showing unto Israel ’ (eo>? T/pepas dmSeL&cos a vtov tt po<s 
tov ’lap.). Whether or not the signs were in the first 
instance seen by more than the Messiah Himself and 
the Baptist (and it is probable that they were not), they 
were made public by the Baptist’s declaration (Jn i 29 ^ 4 ), 
so that in any case there was a real ‘ manifestation to 
Israel.’ 

No doubt there was more than this. Besides the 
outward manifestation, a new epoch opened for the 
Son of Man Himself. But the nature of this we can 
describe only by its effects. The evangelists evidently 
have before their minds the analogy of the prophetic 
call and prophetic endowment. After the events of the 


42 


THE EARLY MINISTRY 


Baptism Jesus is * full of the Holy Spirit ’ (Lk 4 1 , cf. 
Mt 4 1 , Mk i 12 ). And He applies to Himself the pro¬ 
phetic language of Is 61 1 ‘ The Spirit of the Lord is upon 
me ; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good 
tidings unto the meek,’etc. (cf. Lk 4 18 ; it is probably 
this allusion to ‘ anointing with the Spirit ’ which has 
led to the incident in Lk being placed thus early). In 
the Gospel according to the Hebrews this is expressed 
even more emphatically than in the canonical Gospels : 
* Factum est autem cum ascendisset Dominus de aqua, 
descendit fons omnis Spiritus sancti et requievit super 
eum et dixit illi: Fili mi in omnibus prophetis exspec- 
tabam te, ut venires et requiescerem in te. Tu es enim 
requies mea, tu es filius meus primogenitus qui regnas 
in sempiternum ’ (Hieron. ad Jes. xi. 1). 

We have only to add that from this time onwards the 
role of the Messiah is distinctly assumed. The ‘ mighty 
works ’ very soon begin; disciples begin to attach 
themselves, at first loosely, but with increasing close¬ 
ness ; and there is a tone of decisive authority both in 
teaching and in act. 

Literature. — There is a strange mixture of fine scholarship 
and learning, with bold, not to say wild, speculation on the subject 
of this section in Usener’s Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 
1 Teil, Bonn, 1889. With this may be compared Bornemann, Die 
Taufe Christi durch Johannes in d. dogmatischen Beurteilung 
d. Christi. Theologen d. vier ersten Jahrhunderte , Leipzig, 1896. 
John the Baptist , by the late Dr. H. R. Reynolds (3rd ed. 1888), 
represents the Congregational Lechtre of 1874, and deals more 
with the career of John than with the questions which arise out 
of the Baptism of Jesus; but it does not leave these untouched so 
far as they had at that date come into view. 

§ 13 . ii. The Temptation. — We decline to speculate 


PRELIMINARY PERIOD 


43 


where the data fail us. But one remarkable glimpse 
is afforded us into the state of the inner consciousness 
of the Son of Man after His Baptism. Strictly speak¬ 
ing, this would not as yet have been available to the 
spectator. It was probably not at this early date that 
it was disclosed, even to those nearest and dearest to 
Him. Still, the disclosure must have been made by the 
Lord Himself during His lifetime; and the extent to 
which it has found its way into all the Synoptics shows 
that it must have had a somewhat wide diffusion among 
the main body of the disciples. For this reason, as well 
as for the advantage of introducing it at the place which 
it occupies in the narratives, we shall not hesitate to 
touch upon the Temptation here, though it might per¬ 
haps more strictly come under the head of ‘ Supplemental 
Matter.’ 

The narratives of the Temptation are upon the face 
of them symbolical. Only in the form of symbols was 
it possible to present to the men of that day a struggle 
so fought out in the deepest recesses of the soul. There 
are two instances of such struggle in the life of the 
Redeemer — one at the beginning and the other at the 
end of His ministry (Lk 4 13 comp, with 22 s3 ). In both, 
the assault comes from without, from the personal 
Power of Evil. It is impossible for us to understand 
it, in the sense of understanding how what we call 
temptation could affect the Son of God. It could not 
have touched Him at all unless He had been also, 
and no less really, Son of Man. He vouchsafed to be 
tempted in order that He might be in all points like 
unto His brethren (He 4 15 ). 

The Temptation clearly belongs to the beginning of 


44 


THE EARLY MINISTRY 


the Ministry. It would have had no point before ; and 
the issue on which it turned had evidently been decided 
before the public life of Jesus began, as that life 
throughout its whole course followed the law which 
was then laid down. The Temptation implies two 
things. It implies that He to whom it was addressed 
both knew Himself to be the Messiah whom the Jews 
expected, and also knew Himself to be in possession 
of extraordinary powers. To say that He was now for 
the first time conscious of these powers is more than 
we have warrant for. But, in any case, it was the first 
time that the problem arose how they were to be exer¬ 
cised. Were they to be exercised at the prompting of 
the simplest of all instincts — the instinct of self-preser¬ 
vation? Were they to be exercised in furtherance of 
what must have seemed to be the first condition on 
which His mission as the Messiah could be accom¬ 
plished — to convince the world that He had the mission, 
that it was for Him to lead and for them to follow? 
And, lastly, when He came forward as the Messiah, 
was it to be as the Messiah of Jewish expectation? 
Was His kingdom to be a kingdom of this world? 
Was it to embrace all the secular kingdoms and the 
glory of them, to enfold them in a system more power¬ 
ful and more magnificent than theirs, brought about by 
supernatural means, with no local limitations like even 
the greatest of past empires, but wide as the universe 
itself and indestructible ? Was it to be a real restoring 
of the kingdom to Israel ? Was Jerusalem to be its 
centre, in a new sense the ‘ city of the Great King ’ ? 

All these questions Jesus answered for Himself 
absolutely in the negative. There did not enter into 


PRELIMINARY PERIOD 


45 


His mind even a passing shadow of the ambition which 
marked the best of earthly conquerors. He was deter¬ 
mined not to minister in the least to the national pride 
of the Jews. Still less would He work out a new pride 

of His own. He did not desire in any sense volitare 

per ora. Even the most natural cravings of the nature 
which He had assumed He refused to satisfy so long as 
their satisfaction ended with Himself. 

These principles are involved in the narrative of the 

Temptation. They are laid down once for all; and the 

rest of the history shows no swerving from them. At 
the same time it must be remembered that although the 
decision had been reached by Jesus Himself, it was not 
yet known, except so far as He was pleased to reveal 
it. Partly, the revelation was made by acts and the 
self-imposed limits of action. The clearest revelation 
was the story of the Temptation itself. But neither the 
one nor the other was wholly understood. 

§ 14 . iii. The First Disciples and the Miracle at 
Cana .—At this point we leave for some time the Sy¬ 
noptic narrative and follow rather that in the Fourth 
Gospel, which it must be confessed comes to us with 
very considerable verisimilitude. If we had only the 
Synoptic Gospels we should have to suppose that our 
Lord gathered about Him a band of disciples abruptly 
and suddenly, capturing them as it were by the tone 
of authority in His command. In St. John we have the 
steps given which led up to this, and which make it far 
more intelligible. 

From this Gospel it would appear that Jesus remained 
for some time in the neighbourhood of the Baptist; 


46 


THE EARLY MINISTRY 


that the Baptist more than once indicated Him in a 
marked and indeed mysterious way (Jn i 29 ‘ The Lamb 
of God, which taketh away the sin of the world ’; cf. 
v. 36 );* and that one by one several of John’s disciples 
began to attach themselves, as yet more or less loosely, 
to His person. The Baptist’s testimony, strengthened 
by first impressions, awoke in them the belief that at 
last the ‘ mightier than he ’ predicted by the Baptist had 
come (Jn i 41 ). Such a belief at this time and under 
these circumstances would need no elaborate demonstra¬ 
tion. It would be accepted in a tentative way, awaiting 
verification from events, and, of course, only with those 
contents which accorded with current Jewish opinion. 

The home of Jesus was still, as it had been for some 
thirty years of His life, at Nazareth; and at the time 
when He began to collect followers round Him, He was 
already on the point of returning thither (Jn i 43 ). He 
had not as yet separated Himself from the domestic 
life of His family. It was as an incident in this life 
that He went to a marriage feast at the village of Cana 
(prob. = Kan a el-Jelil rather than Kefr Kenna) in the 
company of His mother and some at least of His newly- 
found disciples. Here occurred the first of those ‘ signs * 
which were to be one conspicuous outcome of His 
mission. No wonder that it impressed itself vividly on 
the memory of one who was present, and that it con- 

* The words are remarkable, especially as coming thus at the 
very threshold. It is possible that the evangelist may have been 
led to define somewhat in view of later events and later doctrines 
(for the allusion seems to be to Is 53). But the context, including 
the deputation from Jerusalem, is so lifelike and so thoroughly in 
accordance with probabilities, that the saying has a presumption 
in its favour. 


PRELIMINARY PERIOD 47 

firmed his incipient faith (Jn 2 11 ). We shall speak of 
these signs in their general bearing presently. 

§ 15 . iv. The First Passover .— There would seem to 
have been some connexion between the family at 
Nazareth and Capernaum,* as the whole party now 
spend some days there (Jn 2 12 ). But the Passover was 
near, and Jesus, with at least some of His disciples, 
went up to it. In connexion with this Passover, St. 
John places, what has the appearance of a somewhat 
high-handed act, the expulsion of buyers and sellers 
from the outer court of the temple (Jn 2 13 " 22 ). The 
Synoptics place a similar act in the last week of the 
Ministry (Mk ii 15 ' 18 ||). It is possible that such an act 
may have happened twice; but if we are to choose, and 
if we believe the Gospel to be really by the son of 
Zebedee, we shall give his dating the preference — the 
more so as in these early chapters the dates are given 
with great precision, and apparently with the intention 
of correcting a current impression. 

This act was the first definite assumption of a public 
mission to Israel, and its scene was fitly chosen at the 
centre of Israel’s worship. It was the act, not as yet 
necessarily of one who claimed to be the Messiah, but 
of a religious reformer like one of the ancient prophets. 
It was naturally followed by a challenge as to the right 

* The site of Capernaum has been much debated. At one time 
it seemed as if the suffrage would go for Tell HAm> but of late 
there has been a reaction in favour of Khan Minyeh (see the art. 
in Hastings’ DB, HGHL p. 456 f., and von Soden, Reisebriefe (1898), 
p. 160 f., who quotes a resident, Pere Biever). Buhl, however, GAP 
p. 224, supports Tell HAm, which the writer now accepts (see Journ» 
of Theol. Studies , Oct. 1903). 


48 


THE EARLY MINISTRY 


of such an assumption. To this the enigmatic reply 
was given, ‘ Destroy this temple, and in three days (i.e. 
in a short time, cf. Hos 6 *) I will raise it up *; which 
seems to be rightly glossed in Mk 14 58 — the Jewish 
Church with its visible local centre should give place 
to the Christian Church with its invisible and spiritual 
centre (cf. Jn 4 21f> ). The saying made an impression at 
the time, and was brought up at the trial of Jesus to 
support a charge of blasphemy; the disciples at a later 
date referred it to the Resurrection (Jn 2 21f ). 

A striking feature in the Johannean version of His 
visit to Judaea is the way in which the work of Jesus 
in connexion with it takes up the work of the Baptist 
and fills in conspicuous gaps in the narrative of the 
Synoptics. The cleansing of the temple is an act of 
reformation which follows up the call to repentance. 
In John alone of the authorities have we a distinct state¬ 
ment that Jesus adopted the practice of baptism (3 s2 4 1 ), 
though no other account of the origin of the Christian 
Sacrament is so natural. We find also that the neces¬ 
sity for baptism and the ‘ new birth ’ which went with it 
is made the subject of a discourse with the Sanhedrist 
Nicodemus. The w r riter of the Gospel had been himself 
a disciple of John the Baptist, and still kept up his 
connexion with him, and knew what went on in his circle 
(Jn 3 23ff ). At the same time he seems to expand the dis¬ 
courses which he records with matter of his own (3 16ff - 31ff ). 

§ 16 . v. Retirement to Galilee. — Soon after this John 
the Baptist was arrested by Herod Antipas, and Jesus 
retired into Galilee. On the way He passed through 
Samaria, and paused at Jacob’s well near the village of 


PRELIMINARY PERIOD 


49 


Sychar (now generally identified with * Askar ), where 
His teaching made a marked impression (Jn 4 39-42 ). 
The Samaritans had a Messianic expectation of their 
own (Jn 4 s5 ); and if the narrator has not defined what 
took place in the light of subsequent events, Jesus 
claimed to fulfil this expectation. This was contrary to 
His policy for some time to come in dealing with Israel 
(Mk i 44 ), but He may possibly have used greater free¬ 
dom among non-Israelites. 

The events of Jn 2 13 ~4 45 may have occupied three or 
four weeks, but hardly more. At the time when our 
Lord arrives in Galilee the impression of His public 
acts at the Passover was still fresh (Jn 4 45 ). This 
would lead us to explain the latter half of Jn 4 s5 as a 
description of the state of things actually existing; 
the cornfields were at the time ‘white for the harvest/ 
and ‘ Say not ye,’ etc., will be a proverb. But that 
being so, a difficulty would be caused if the incident of 
the plucking of the ears of corn (Mk 2 28ff -) were in its 
place chronologically, as the crops would still be in 
much the same condition as during the journey through 
Samaria, though the wheat harvest was going on be¬ 
tween Passover and Pentecost, and all the events im¬ 
plied in Mk i 14 -2 22 would have intervened. The time is 
really too short for these. It is more probable that they 
were spread over some months. We must conceive of 
our Lord as returning to Galilee with the few disciples 
with Him still in the state of loose attachment character¬ 
istic of this period, and Himself remaining for a while 
in comparative privacy. The disciples had returned to 
their occupations when He takes the new and decisive 
step involved in the call described for us in the Synoptics. 

4 


50 


THE EARLY MINISTRY 


The Synoptic Chronology. — If Mk 2 23 || is to be taken as strictly 
consecutive with the events that precede, it would follow that the 
call of the leading apostles took place at least a week or two 
before the cutting of the ripened wheat, i.e., as we might infer, be¬ 
fore rather than sometime after the Passover season. In that case 
the Johannean and Synoptic narratives would not be easy to combine. 
But the sequence of incidents in Mark (Eating with sinners, 2 13-17 ; 
Fasting, 2 13-23 ; Two incidents relating to the Sabbath, 2 23 ~3 6 ) sug¬ 
gests that we have here rather a typical group of points in the contro¬ 
versy with the Pharisees than a chronicle of events as they happened 
in order of time. In that case the call of the apostles might fall in 
the autumn, and the plucking of the ears of corn might belong to the 
end rather than the beginning of the period upon which we are about 
to enter. 

The Healing of the Nobleman's Son. — As the narratives have 
come down to us, there are no doubt real differences between the 
story of the healing of the Nobleman’s Son (Jn q 4 ^ 4 ) and that of 
the Centurion’s Servant (Mt 8 5-13 ||). We must, however, reckon with 
the possibility — it cannot in any case be more — that they are two 
versions of the same event, arising out of the ambiguity of ttous and 
SovXos. Years ago (. Fourth Gospel , p. ioof.) the writer had taken this 
view, which has since been adopted by Weiss ( Leben Jesu , i. 423 ft.; 
Eng. tr., T. & T. Clark). A similar question may be raised in con¬ 
nexion with the common features of the narratives Lk 5 1-11 , Jn 2l 1_n . 
There, too, there may have been some confusion (. Fourth Gospel , p. 267; 
cf. Loofs, Die Auferstehungsberichte , p. 32). Such instances mark the 
limits of a laxer or stricter interpretation of the historicity of the docu¬ 
ments, between which we are not in a position to decide with absolute 
certainty. 


B. First Active or Constructive Period : the 
Founding of the Kingdom. 

§ 17 . Scene. — Mainly in Galilee, but also partly in 
Jerusalem. 

Time. — From about Pentecost a.d. 27 to shortly 
before Passover a.d. 28. 

Mt 4 12 -i3 53 , Mk i 14 -6 13 , Lk 4 14 - 9 6 , Jn 5 1 - 47 . 


FIRST ACTIVE PERIOD 


51 


In this period the points to notice are: (i.) The 
Call, Training, and Mission of the Twelve, fol¬ 
lowed perhaps by a larger number (the Seventy of 
St. Luke) ; (ii.) the gradual differentiation of the 
ministry of Jesus from that of John Baptist and 
its assumption of a much larger scope; (iii.) a 
full course of teaching on the true nature of the 
Kingdom of God (or of Heaven); (iv.) the per¬ 
formance of a number of Messianic works, chiefly 
of healing; (v.) the effect of these works on the 
common people as seen in a great amount of 
superficial enthusiasm, but without as yet much 
intelligent apprehension of the object really in 
view; (vi.) the growing hostility of the scribes 
and Pharisees caused by a more and more de¬ 
clared divergence of principle; (vii.) the very 
gentle indirect and gradual putting forward by 
Jesus of His claim as the Messiah. 

Up to the point which we have now reached there 
had been no definite ‘ founding ’ of a society; no steps 
had been taken towards the institution even of a new 
sect, much less of a new religion. The Baptism of 
Jesus had been attended by circumstances which 
marked Him out in a highly significant manner; but 
the general knowledge of these circumstances was 
vague, and even in those who were not unacquainted 
with them they awoke expectations rather than convic¬ 
tions, and these, too, were vague and left for the future 
to define. For the rest little as yet had occurred to 
define them. A certain number of disciples had gathered 
round Jesus in the most easy and natural manner, just 
as disciples had gathered round many a Rabbi before 


52 


THE EARLY MINISTRY 


Him. These simply came and went as inclination took 
them ; they were not as yet bound by any closer ties to 
His person. He had gone about quietly wdth some of 
them in His company, but nothing very startling had 
happened. The expulsion of the buyers and sellers 
from the temple was a prophetic act, and two ‘ signs ’ 
had occurred at a considerable interval; but this was 
little to what the Jews expected in their Messiah. So 
far Jesus had worked side by side with the Baptist, and 
on very similar lines. If His disciples took a share in 
baptizing (Jn 4 s ), it was in the same kind of baptizing 
as that of John. It was a baptism ‘of repentance/ and 
in no sense baptism ‘ into the name of Christ.’ 

The period on which we are now entering marks a 
great advance. The work which Jesus came to perform 
now took its distinctive shape. What had gone before 
was of the nature of foretaste, hints, foreshadowings; 
now the strokes follow each other in quick succession 
by which the purpose of Jesus is set clearly before 
those who have eyes to see. We may take these one 
by one. 

§ 18 . i. The Call , Training , and Mission of the 
Twelve (and of the Seventy). — The first step is one 
which evidently struck the imagination of the followers 
of Jesus, because it is placed in the forefront of the 
Synoptic narrative. It is, in fact, the real beginning 
of the Public Ministry. Among those who had been 
the first to seek a nearer acquaintance with the new 
Prophet were two pairs of brothers, both from 
Capernaum, and both fishermen by trade. When Jesus 
returned to Galilee they all went back to their ordinary 


FIRST ACTIVE PERIOD 


53 


occupations, and they were engaged in these when 
suddenly they saw Him standing by the shore of the 
lake and received a peremptory command to follow 
Him (Mk i 16-20 !!). This 1 following ’ meant something 
more than anything they had done as yet; they were 
to ‘ be with him ’ (Mk 3 14 ), so that they might receive 
His teaching continuously and in a manner systemati¬ 
cally. They were encouraged to ask questions, and 
their questions were answered. Special and full ex¬ 
planations were given to them which were not given 
to others (Mt 13 34 ). The teaching of Jesus was not 
esoteric, but there was this inner circle to whom 
peculiar advantages were given for entering into it. 

The call which was issued in the first instance to the 
four, Peter and Andrew, James and John, was gradu¬ 
ally extended. The one other instance particularized 
in the Gospels is that of Levi, the son of Alphaeus, to 
whom was given — possibly by Jesus Himself (Weiss, 
Leben Jesu , i. 503) — the name of ‘Matthew’ (=‘given 
by God ’). A like call proceeded to others, till the 
number was made up to twelve (lists in Mk 3 16-19 , Mt 
io 2 ' 4 , Lk 6 14 ~ 16 , Ac i 13 ). The persons chosen belonged 
to the middle and lower classes. Some must have 
been fairly well-to-do. Not only did the fishermen 
own the boats they used, but the father of James and 
John had ‘hired servants’ (Mk i 20 ), and John was 
acquainted with the high priest* (*>., perhaps, with 
members of his household, Jn 18 15 ). Matthew was of 
the despised class of ‘publicans.’ The second Simon 

* Hugo Delff ( Gesch. d. Rabbi Jesus v. Nazareth , p. 70 ff.), dis¬ 
tinguishing between the Apostle John and the author of the 
Fourth Gospel, makes the latter a Jew of priestly family. 


54 


THE EARLY MINISTRY 


belonged to the party of Zealots. One, the second 
Judas (like his father, Simon, Jn 6 71 13 26 RV), was a 
native of Kerioth in Judaea. They were chosen evi¬ 
dently for a certain moral aptitude which they showed 
for the mission to be entrusted to them. Judas Iscariot 
possessed this like the rest, but wrecked his fair 
chances. The choice and call of Jesus did not preclude 
the use of common free-will. 

The course of teaching in which the Twelve were 
initiated covered a considerable part of that of which 
an outline will presently be sketched, especially its 
first two heads. It is summarized in the phrase ‘ the 
mystery of the Kingdom ’ (Mk 4 n ||). Of course it is 
not to be thought that the disciples at once understood 
all that was told them. Very far from it. They had 
much to unlearn as well as to learn, and they showed 
themselves slow of apprehension. But the form of 
teaching adopted by Jesus was exactly fitted for its 
object, which was to lodge in the mind principles 
that would gradually become luminous as they were 
interpreted by events and by prolonged if slow 
reflection. 

Jesus Himself knew full well how unripe even the 
most intimate of His disciples were to carry out His 
designs. After a time — we may suppose early in the 
year 28 — He sent out the Twelve on a mission to 
villages and country districts which He was not able to 
visit at once Himself (Mt io lff ||). But they were not 
to attempt to teach. Some of the wonderful works 
which Jesus did Himself they also were empowered to 
do; but the announcement which they were to make by 
word of mouth was limited to the one formula with 


FIRST ACTIVE PERIOD 55 

which both John and Jesus had begun: ‘ The kingdom 
of heaven is at hand ’ (Mt io 7 ). 

In one Gospel mention is made of a mission which seems to be 
supplemental to this. Luke speaks not only of the Twelve being 
sent out, but also of Seventy sent out like the Twelve by twos (Lk 
io 1 *). When we observe that the instructions given to them 
are substantially a repetition of those already given to the 
Twelve, the question lies near at hand whether we have not in 
this incident a mere doublet of the preceding, the number seventy 
( var . led. seventy-two) representing in current symbolism the 
nations of the known world (cf. Gn 10) — being gradually sub¬ 
stituted in the oral tradition of Gentile Churches for the number 
twelve, which seemed to point specially to Israel. We note also 
that Luke omits the restrictions of Mt io 5 . But, on the other 
hand, Luke connects with the return of the Seventy a little group 
of sayings (Lk io 18 - 20 ) which have every appearance of being 
genuine, and so increase the credibility of the narrative which 
leads up to them. And there is reason to think that one at least 
of the special sources to which Luke had access came from just 
such a quarter as that indicated by the Seventy — not the inner¬ 
most, but the second circle of disciples. He may therefore have 
had historical foundation for his statement. Nor need it perhaps 
mean more than that Jesus did not draw any hard-and-fast line at 
the Twelve, but made use of other disciples near His person for 
the same purpose. 

§ 19 . ii. Differentiation of the Ministry of Jesus fro 7 n 
that of John the Baptist. — We have just seen that John, 
Jesus Himself, and the apostles all opened their ministry 
with the same announcement. They also made use of 
the same rite — baptism. But there the resemblance 
ceased. These were only the links which bound the 
stage of preparation to the stage of fulfilment. Look¬ 
ing back upon the work of John, Jesus pronounced 
that the least of His own disciples was greater than 
he (Mt 11 11 1 |). It was the difference between one who 
was within the range of the Kingdom and one who was 


56 


THE EARLY MINISTRY 


without it. The work of John was perfectly good and 
appropriate as far as it went. Its character was 
indicated by the ‘preaching of repentance,’ with which 
it stopped short. In full keeping with this was John’s 
ascetic habit and mode of life. The abandonment of 
this by Jesus was the first outward sign of divergence 
which struck the eye of the world (Mk 2 18 ' 22 ||, Mt 
n 18f ||). But the inward divergence was far greater. 
John inherited the old idea as to the nature of the 
Kingdom and of the Messiah. While impressed with 
the necessity of a moral reformation as leading up to it, 
there is nothing to show that in other respects John’s 
conception of King and Kingdom differed from that of 
his countrymen. But Jesus came to revolutionize not 
only the conception but the mode of carrying it out. 
Hence it was that towards the end of his day, with the 
despondency of one whose own work seemed wrecked, 
and who was himself confined in a dungeon, and with 
the disappointment natural to one who saw or heard of 
but few of the signs which he had expected as in 
process of fulfilment, John sent to inquire if Jesus were 
the Messiah indeed, or, in other words, if the great 
hope and the great faith to which he had himself given 
expression had proved delusive. As yet Jesus had but 
in part, and that very covertly, declared Himself; it 
was impossible all at once to open the eyes of John to 
the full mysteries of the Kingdom ; and therefore Jesus 
contented Himself with appealing from the current 
idea to one of the fundamental passages of ancient 
prophecy the higher authority of which John would 
recognize (Mt ii 5 ||). At the same time He hinted 
that patience and insight were necessary for a true 


FIRST ACTIVE PERIOD 57 

faith; anything less than this might easily stumble 
(Mt n 6 ||). 

§ 20 . iii. Preaching of the Kingdom. — In the mean¬ 
time the crowds of Galilee, and especially the Twelve, 
enjoyed the privilege which John did not. They were 
having expounded to them in full the new doctrine of 
the Kingdom of God (or of heaven). This doctrine is 
of such far-reaching importance, and is so intimately 
bound up with the rest of our Lord’s teaching, that it 
has seemed best to reserve the fuller account of it for 
separate and connected treatment at the end of this 
section. In so doing we are following the example of 
the First Evangelist, who has massed together a body 
of teaching at an early place in his Gospel (Mt 5-7), 
not that it was all spoken on the same occasion, but as 
a specimen of the general tenor of the teaching of which 
it formed part. We have a similar example of grouped 
specimens of teaching in Mt 13. It must suffice to add 
here ( a ) that the main subject of the teaching at this 
period would seem to have been the nature of the 
Kingdom and the character required in its members: 
such sayings as Mt are more in keeping with the 
later cycle of teaching, and were probably spoken later. 
(J?) It must be remembered that the vast majority of those 
who listened to this teaching heard it only by fragments. 
It was like the seed-corn scattered in various kinds of 
ground (Mk 4 1-20 ||): it was not to be expected that even 
under the most favourable circumstances it should 
germinate and bear fruit all at once. Clearly, the 
Twelve themselves did not take in its full significance. 
But it is much that they should have remembered so 


58 


THE EARLY MINISTRY 


much of it as they did, and that when their eyes were 
more fully opened they should have been able to set it 
down so coherently. 

§ 21. iv. The Messianic Works. — Another marked 
characteristic of this period is the number of miraculous 
works of healing, etc., which are attributed to it and 
evidently belong to it. Once more we may follow the 
example of the First Evangelist by treating these works, 
which are so much the subject of discussion in modern 
times, by themselves. We assume here the result 
which we seem to reach in the section devoted to them. 
We assume that the miracles are historical; and we 
observe only that they bear the general character 
indicated in the reply of Jesus to John the Baptist. 
They are predominantly works of mercy; and they are 
a direct, and as we believe conscious, fulfilment of the 
most authentic of ancient prophecies, as contrasted 
with the mere signs and wonders for which the con¬ 
temporary Jews were looking. Here, as in other 
things, we note at once (a) that Jesus condescends to 
put Himself at the level of those to whom He was sent. 
Miracles were to them the natural credentials of any great 
prophet, and especially of the Messiah. Jesus therefore 
did not refuse to work miracles. That He should work 
them was part of the conditions of the humanity which 
He assumed. But (J?) though He condescended to 
work miracles, it was only miracles of a certain kind. 
He steadily refused to perform the mere wonders which 
the critics of His claims repeatedly challenged Him to 
perform. In other words, He made His miracles almost 
as much a vehicle of instruction as His teaching. Those 


FIRST ACTIVE PERIOD 


59 


which He did perform fell into their place as the natural 
accompaniment of one who as in character so novel 
and unexpected a King was founding so novel a 
Kingdom. 

§ 22 . v. Effect on the Populace. — It is a confirmation 
of the view taken above and based on the Fourth 
Gospel,—that the call of the Twelve was preceded by 
a preliminary and more sporadic ministry — that from 
the first day on which the regular ministry began it 
attracted great attention and was attended by great, 
if superficial, success among the populace of Galilee 
(Mk i 32-34 1 |). Nor did the success of this first day 
stand alone; it was frequently repeated, and indeed 
gives the character to the whole of this period (Mk 2 2,12 1 | 
3 7-10 || 32 1| || ^21 1|^ Lk: 7 16f ). Both the miracles and the 

teaching of Jesus made a strong impression. The 
people were struck by the difference between the acts 
and words of Jesus and those of the teachers to whom 
they were accustomed. Acts and words alike implied a 
claim to an authority different in kind from that of the 
most respected of the Rabbis (Mk i 27 1 |, Mt 7 28f ). The 
Rabbis interpreted the law as they found it; Jesus laid 
down a new law (Mt 5 s1,22 etc.), and when He spoke, it 
was with an air of command. It must not, however, 
be supposed that Jesus was at once recognized as the 
Messiah. The testimony of the Baptist had reached 
but few, and was by this time generally forgotten. 
The construction put upon the commanding attitude of 
Jesus was that described in Lk 7 16 ‘ A great prophet is 
arisen among us; and God hath visited His people.’ 
Still less can it be supposed that there was any adequate 


6o 


THE EARLY MINISTRY 


recognition of the change which Jesus came to work in 
the current conceptions of religion. 

§ 23 . vi. Effect upon the Pharisees. — The populace 
came to Jesus with simple and credulous minds, and they 
did not resist the impression made upon them, though 
it lacked depth and permanence (Mk 4 sf - 1 |). Our 
documents are doubtless right in representing the first 
signs of opposition and hostility as coming from the 
religious leaders, the scribes and Pharisees. They are 
also clearly right in representing the growth of this 
opposition as gradual. At first Pharisees joined freely 
in social intercourse with Jesus and His disciples, and 
even invited them to their own tables (Lk probably 
belongs to this early period). They could not deny the 
possibility of a prophet arising, and they repeatedly 
sought to test after their manner whether Jesus were 
really a prophet sent from God or no (Mt i2 38ff - || i6 lff - 
i 9 3ff ||, Jn 7 47ff -, cf. i 19ff ). But their suspicions were soon 
aroused. It was evident that the teaching and manner 
of the life of Jesus conflicted greatly with their own. 
There was a freedom and largeness of view 7 about it 
which was foreign to their whole habits of thought. 
(a) In such matters as fasting, the practice of Jesus and 
His disciples was different (Mk 2 18ff> , Mt 6 16ff - etc.). 
Worse than this, Jesus appealed expressly to those 
classes which they scrupulously avoided (Mk 2 15-17 1 | 
etc.). (p) Not only did Jesus direct His ministry 
especially to those wdiom they regarded as outcast and 
irreclaimable, but He made some direct attacks upon 
themselves. At first these attacks may have been 
slightly disguised (as in Mt 6 lff -, where the Pharisees 


FIRST ACTIVE PERIOD 


61 


are not mentioned by name), but they constantly 
increased in directness and severity, (e) One of the 
first topics on which they came into collision was in 
regard to the keeping of the Sabbath. Mark has 
collected a little group of incidents bearing upon this 
(Mk 2 23 -3 6 ), the first of which, from the mention of the 
ripe corn, appears, as we have seen, to belong to the 
second year of the ministry, but belongs to an early 
phase in the conflict. To the same effect is the incident 
related in Jn 5 lff -, and Luke contributes another (Lk 
I 3 1117 )- (A The Pharisees were also honestly shocked 
at seeing Jesus adopt a tone and assume prerogatives 
which seemed to them to encroach upon the honour 
of God (Mk 2 5 - 11 1 |). 

It is interesting, and throws a favourable light on the documents, 
to note how carefully the distinction is marked between ( a ) the 
local scribes and Pharisees such as were to be found scattered 
throughout Galilee (Mk 2 6 -|| 16 || 18 - 24 3% Lk (b) the scribes who 
came down from Jerusalem (Mk 3 22 ), apparently emissaries from 
the hierarchy, like the deputation of Jn i 19 ; and ( c ) the Herodians 
(Mk 3 6 ), the dynastic party of the Herods, who with quite different 
motives acted in alliance with the Pharisees. The Herodians are 
mentioned again in Mk I 2 13 ||. The name is otherwise almost 
unknown to history, though the party is known to have existed. 
Josephus has oi tcl 'Hpiodov cppovovvres, but not 'H pudiavol. This is a 
pure reflexion of the facts of the time — facts which soon passed 
away, and which fiction would never have recovered. See, further, 
DB, art. Herodians. 

§ 24 . The Self-Revelation of fesus. —Although Jesus 
assumed these high prerogatives, and although, as we 
have seen, He both spoke and acted with an authority 
which permitted no question, He showed a singular 
reticence in putting forward Messianic or Divine claims. 
It is remarkable that from the first those possessed 


62 


THE EARLY MINISTRY 


with demons publicly confessed Him for what He was; 
but it is no less remarkable that He checked these 
confessions: ‘ He suffered not the demons to speak, 
because they knew him’ (Mk i 34 !! 3 12 [Mt 12 16 ]). He 
imposed a like injunction of silence on one healed of 
leprosy (Mk i 44 1 |). The farthest point to which Jesus 
went in the way of self-revelation at this early period 
was by taking to Himself the special title ‘ Son of 
Man.’ There was probably some precedent for the 
identification of this title with ‘ Messiah,’ but it was at 
least not in common use, and therefore served well to 
cover a claim which was made but in no way obtruded. 
A fuller discussion of the title will be found below 
(p. 9 i ff.). 

This marked reticence of Jesus in regard to His own 
Person is clearly part of a deliberate plan. One of its 
motives was to prevent the rash and reckless violence 
which one who appealed to the Messianic expectation 
was sure to excite (Jn 6 15 ). But it was in full keeping 
with the whole of His demeanour and with the special 
character which He gave to His mission. The first 
evangelist rightly sees in this a fulfilment (which we 
believe here as elsewhere to have been conscious and 
deliberate) of the prophecy Is 42 1_3 ‘My servant . . . 
shall not strive, nor cry aloud ; neither shall any one 
hear his voice in the streets,’ etc. 

It is impossible for us to think of the Jesus portrayed 
in the Gospels as forcing His claims upon the attention 
of the world. He rather let them sink gently into the 
minds of His disciples until they won an assent which 
was not only free and spontaneous, but also more 
intelligent than it could have been if enforced simply by 


FIRST ACTIVE PERIOD 


63 


authority. But, apart from this, it was essential to the 
development of His mission that the teaching of the 
Kingdom should precede, and precede by a sufficient 
interval, the public self-manifestation and offer of the 
King. The first thing to be done was to change the 
character and revolutionize the moral conceptions of 
men. This was to be the work of quiet teaching. 
The hour for the Leader to come forward was the hour 
when teaching was to give place to action. Hence it 
was well that at first and for some time to come the 
King should remain, as it were, in the background, 
until the preparation for His assuming His kingship 
was complete. 




CHAPTER IV. 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES. 

THE TEACHING OF JESUS. 

a. General Characteristics of the Teaching. 

§ 25 . (i) Its Relation to the Teaching of the Baptist and 
to that of the Scribes. — We have seen that Jesus began by- 
taking up not only the announcement of the Baptist that 
the Kingdom of God was at hand, but also his call to 
reformation of life and the rite of baptism by which that 
call was impressed upon the conscience. We are also 
expressly told that the call to repentance was part of the 
apostolic commission (Mk 6 12 ). And we find it no less 
insisted upon after the resurrection (Lk 24 47 , Ac 2 s8 3 19 5 31 

Ills i7 30 20 21 26 20^ 

This is clear proof of the continuity which bound to¬ 
gether the teaching of Jesus with that of the Baptist. The 
starting-point of both was the same. And yet this starting- 
point was very soon left behind. The heads of the 
Baptist’s teaching are soon told ; the teaching of Jesus 
expands and ramifies in a thousand directions. It is like 
passing from the narrow cleft of the Jordan to a Pisgah- 
view over the whole Land of Promise. 

5 6 5 


66 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


Although it was permitted to the Baptist to prepare the 
way for the teaching of Jesus, so far as even to enunciate 
its opening lesson, the place of the Baptist is quietly 
assigned to him ; and it is a place outside the threshold of 
the Kingdom: ‘ He that is but little in the kingdom of 
heaven is greater than he ’ (Mt ii 11 ||). 

If Christ thus drew a line between His own teaching 
and that of John, still more marked was the difference 
between it and other contemporary teaching. John was 
at least a prophet, and spoke with the full authority of 
a prophet (Mt n 9,13 ). The scribes had no original 
authority at all; they did but interpret a law which 
they had not made. Jesus spoke with an authority not 
only above that of the scribes (Mk i 22 ||), but higher still 
than that of John. He is the legislator of a new law 
(Mt 5 22 etc.), the founder of that Kingdom which John 
did not enter. 

§ 26 . (2) Its Universal Range .—With this command¬ 
ing character of the teaching of Jesus there goes a corre¬ 
sponding width of outlook. We began with a rapid 
survey of the state of parties and opinions in Palestine 
at the time of Christ. But the object of this survey 
was not to explain the teaching of Jesus by affiliating it 
to any existing school. It was remarked of Him that 
He had had no regular training (Jn 7 15 ). He was not 
a Pharisee, not a Sadducee, not an Essene, not an 
Apocalyptist. The direct affinities of the teaching of 
Jesus were with nothing so transitory and local, but 
rather with that which was most central in OT. We 
might call it the distilled essence of OT : that essence 
first clarified and then greatly enlarged, the drop 
became a crystal sphere. 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 


67 


We are speaking, of course, of the substance, and 
of the main part of the substance, of the teaching of 
Jesus. The mere fact that it was conditioned by time 
and space involved that it should be addressed to a 
given generation in a language which it understood. 
Nor was it wholly without definite and particular 
applications — sidelights, so to speak, upon that space 
in history within which it falls. But history itself has 
shown that in the main it transcends all these condi¬ 
tions, and is as fresh at the end of eighteen centuries 
as when first it was delivered. 

§ 27 . (3) Its Method. — This wonderful adaptability in 
the teaching of Jesus is accounted for in part by its 
extreme simplicity. If it had been a doctrine of the 
schools, something of the fashion of the schools would 
have adhered to it. But, as it was, it was addressed 
chiefly to the common people — sometimes to congrega¬ 
tions in synagogues, sometimes to the chance company 
collected in private houses, more often still to casual 
gatherings in the open air. 

And the language in which the teaching was couched 
was such as to appeal most directly to audiences like 
these. As a rule it takes hold of the simplest elements 
in our common humanity, ‘ das allgemein Menschliche.’ 
The trivial incidents of everyday life are made to yield 
their lessons: the sower scattering his seed, the house¬ 
wife baking her cakes or sweeping the house to find a 
lost piece of money, the shepherd collecting his sheep, 
the fishermen drawing in their net. Sometimes the 
story which forms the vehicle for the teaching takes a 
higher flight: it deals with landed proprietors, and 


68 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


banquets, and kings with their subjects. But even 
then there seems to be a certain deliberate simplifica¬ 
tion. The kings, for instance, are those of the popular 
tale rather than as the courtier would paint them. 

§ 28 . (4) The Parables. — We have been naturally- 
drawn into describing that which is most characteristic 
in the outward form of the teaching of Jesus—His 
parables. The Greek word irapa( 3 o\rj is used in the 
NT in a wider sense than that in which we are in 
the habit of using it. In Lk 4 s3 it = ‘proverb.’ In 
Mt 15 15 (comp, with vv. u * 16_2 °) it = ‘maxim,’ a con¬ 
densed moral truth, whether couched in figurative 
language or not. It covers as well brief aphoristic 
sayings ( e.g . Mk 3 s3 13 28 1 | , Lk 5 s6 6 39 ) as longer dis¬ 
courses in which there is a real ‘ comparison.’ But 
these latter are the ‘ parables ’ in our modern accepta¬ 
tion of the term : they are scenes or short stories taken 
from nature or from common life, which present in a 
picturesque and vivid way some leading thought or 
principle which is capable of being transferred to the 
higher spiritual life of man. The ‘ parable ’ in a some¬ 
what similar sense to this had been employed in OT 
and by the Rabbis, but it had never before been 
employed with so high a purpose, on so large a scale, 
or with such varied application and unfailing perfection 
of form. 

We may say that the parables of Jesus are of two 
kinds. In some the element of ‘ comparison ’ is more 
prominent. In these the parable moves as it were in 
two planes — one that of the scene or story which is 
made the vehicle for the lesson, and the other that 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 69 

of the higher truth which it is sought to convey; the 
essence of the parable lies in the parallelism. In the 
other kind there is no parallelism, but the scene or 
the story is just a typical example of the broader 
principle which it is intended to illustrate. The 
parables in Mt 13, Mk 4 all belong to the one class, 
several of those in the later chapters of St. Luke (the 
Good Samaritan, the Rich Fool, the Rich Man and 
Lazarus, the Pharisee and the Publican) belong rather 
to the other. 

There is a group of sayings in the Fourth Gospel 
to which is given the name 7rapoi/xta rather than 
7rapaf3o\rj (Jn io 6 , cf. 16 25 29 ), though the latter term 
would not have been inappropriate, in which Jesus 
uses the method of comparison to bring out leading 
features in His own character and person. In this 
way He speaks of Himself as the Good Shepherd, 
the Door of the sheep, the Vine, the Light of the 
World. These sayings form a class by themselves, 
and from the peculiar way in which they are worked 
out — the metaphor and the object explained by the 
metaphor being not kept apart but blended and fused 
together — are commonly classed under the head of 
‘ allegory ’ rather than ‘ parable.’ This is another 
instance in which we draw distinctions where the 
Greek of the NT would not have drawn them. 

§ 29 . (5) Interpretation of the Parables. — To this day 
there is some difference of opinion as to the inter¬ 
pretation of the parables. The Patristic writers as 
a rule (though with some exceptions) allow them¬ 
selves great latitude of interpretation. Any point of 


70 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


resemblance to any detail of the parable, however 
subordinate, justifies in their eyes a direct application 
of that detail. A familiar instance is the identification 
of the ‘ two pence,’ which the Good Samaritan gives 
to the host, with the two Sacraments. An opposite 
modern school would restrict the application to the 
leading idea which the parable expresses. It is, how¬ 
ever, fair to remember that the parables are meant 
to illustrate the laws of God’s dealings with men; 
and as the same law is capable of many particular 
applications, all such applications may be said with 
equal right to be included in the parable. For 
instance, the parable of the Two Sons may be as 
true for individuals or for classes as it is for nations 
or groups of nations. The parable of the Great 
Banquet to which the invited guests do not come, 
and which is then thrown open to others who were not 
invited, no doubt points directly to the first reception 
of the gospel, but it is equally appropriate to every 
case where religious privilege is found to give no 
advantage, and the absence of religious privilege 
proves no insuperable hindrance. Any such range of 
application is legitimate and interesting; nor does the 
aptness of the lesson to one set of incidents make it 
any less apt to others where a like principle is at work. 
Every parable has its central idea, and whatever can be 
related to that idea may be fairly brought within its 
scope. To press mere coincidences with the picturesque 
accessories of a parable may be permissible as rhetoric, 
but can have no higher value. 


§ 30 . (6) The Purpose of Teaching by Parables. — If 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 


7 1 


we had before us only the fact of parabolic teaching, 
with the parables as they have come down to us and 
the actual psychological effect which they are seen to 
exercise, we should probably not hesitate as to the 
reason which we assigned for them. The parabolic 
form is, as it were, a barb to the arrow which carries 
home truth to the mind. The extreme beauty of this 
mode of teaching, handled as it is, has been universally 
acknowledged. If simplicity is an element in beauty, 
we have it here to perfection. But when simplicity 
is united to profundity, and to a profundity which 
comes from the touching of elemental chords of human 
feeling, — a touching so delicate, so sure, and so self- 
restrained, which reminds us of the finest Greek art 
with an added spiritual intensity which in that art was 
the one thing wanting, — we have indeed a product 
such as the world had never seen before and will not 
see again. We seem to be placed for the moment at 
the very centre of things: on the one hand there is laid 
bare before us the human heart as it really is or ought 
to be, with all its perversities and affectations stripped 
away; and on the other hand we seem to be admitted 
to the secret council-chamber of the Most High, and to 
have revealed to us the plan by -which He governs the 
-world, the threads in all the tangled skein of being. 
No wonder that the parables have exercised such an 
attractive power, not over any one class or race of men, 
but over humanity wherever it is found. 

Then the nature of the parable, at once presenting 
a picture to the mind and provoking to the search for 
a hidden meaning or application beneath it, would seem 
to be exactly suited to the pedagogic method of Jesus, 


72 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


which always calls for some responsive effort on the 
part of man, and which prefers to produce its effects 
not all at once, but rather with a certain suspense and 
delay, so that the good seed may have time to germinate 
and strike its roots more deeply into the soil. 

This natural action of the method of teaching by 
parables seems so obvious that we might well be con¬ 
tent not to seek any further. But when we turn to the 
Gospels, we find there stated a motive for the adoption 
of this method of teaching which is wholly different, 
and it must be confessed at first sight somewhat para¬ 
doxical. All three Synoptists agree in applying to 
teaching by parables the half-denunciatory passage 
Is b 9 ’ 10 ; they would make its immediate object not so 
much to reveal truth as to conceal it — at least to 
conceal it for the moment from one class while it is 
revealed to another, and its ulterior object to aggravate 
the guilt of those from whom it is concealed. And, 
what is still more remarkable, all three Synoptists 
ascribe the use of this quotation to our Lord Himself, 
as though it really expressed, not merely the result 
of His chosen method of teaching, but its deliberate 
purpose. What are we to make of this ? One group 
of critics would roundly deny that the words were ever 
used in this manner by our Lord. Jiilicher ( e.g .) takes 
his stand on Mk 4 s3 ‘ with many such parables spake 
he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it' 
which would seem to make the method a tender con¬ 
cession to slowness of apprehension rather than a 
means of aggravating it. But, on the other hand, we 
observe that the quotation is attributed to our Lord in 
what must have been the common original of all three 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 


73 


Gospels, i.e. in one of our best and oldest sources. 
And while such passages as Jn I2 39 * 41 (where the same 
quotation is applied by the evangelist) and Ac 28 25 ' 27 
(where it is applied by St. Paul) would show that it 
was part of the common property of the apostolic age, 
the fact that it was so would be still more intelligible 
if the example had been set by our Lord Himself. Nor 
would it be less but rather more appropriate as coming 
from Him, if we regard it as summing up in a broad 
way what He felt was and must be for many of those 
among whom He moved the final outcome of His 
mission. The lesson is very similar to that of Jn 12 4648 . 
The Son of Man does not need to pass judgment on 
those who reject Him. His word judges them by an 
automatic process. That which is meant for their life 
becomes to them an occasion of falling, when from 
indolence or self-will it makes no impression upon 
them. This was the actual course of things; it was 
a course rendered inevitable by the laws which God 
had laid down, and which in that sense might be re¬ 
garded as designed by Him. And inasmuch as the 
Son associates Himself with the providential action of 
the Father, it might be also spoken of as part of His 
own design. It is so, however, rather in the remoter 
degree in which, allowing for the contrariant action of 
human wills, whatever is is also ordained, than as 
directly purposed before the appeal has been made and 
rejected. It belongs to that department of providential 
action which is not primary and due to immediate 
Divine initiative, but secondary or contingent upon 
human failure. 

There is then perhaps sufficient reason to think that 


74 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


the words may after all have been spoken, much as we 
have them, by our Lord. But granting this, we should 
still not be forbidden to surmise that they are some¬ 
what out of place. Standing where they do they come 
to us with a shock of strange severity, which would 
be mitigated if they could be put later in the ministry, 
where they occur in St. John. The transference may 
have been due to the position which the original pas¬ 
sage occupies in Isaiah, where it also serves as a sort 
of programme of the prophet’s mission. There, too, 
the arrangement may conceivably represent the actual 
historical order, but it may also represent the result 
of later experience, which for didactic effect is placed 
at the beginning of the career rather than at the end. 

b. Contents of the Teaching. 

§ 31 . There are five distinctive and characteristic 
topics in the teaching of Jesus — 

(1) The Fatherhood of God. 

(2) The Kingdom of God. 

(3) The Subjects or Members of the Kingdom. 

(4) The Messiah. 

(5) The Paraclete and the Tri-unity of God. 

With that simplicity which we have seen to be so 
marked a feature in His teaching, Jesus selects two 
of the most familiar of all relations to be the types 
round which He groups His teaching in regard to God 
and man — the family and the organized state; God 
stands to man in the relation at once of Father and 
of King. These two types by no means exclude each 
other, but each helps to complete the idea derived from 
the other without which it might be one-sided. At the 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 


75 


same time, in different connexions, first one and then 
the other becomes more prominent. Thus, when stress 
is laid upon the Divine attributes, God appears chiefly 
in the character of Father; when attention is turned 
to the complex relations of men to Him and to one 
another, they are more commonly regarded under the 
figure of a Kingdom. 

§ 32 . (i) The Fatherhood of God. — It has just been 
said that the doctrine that God is Father by no means 
excludes the doctrine that He is also King. This idea, 
too, is repeatedly put forward (Mt 5 s5 18 23 22 s etc.). 
The title ‘ King ’ brings out what in modern language 
we are accustomed to call the ‘ transcendence ’ of God. 
But the recognition of this was, as we saw (p. 13, sup.), 
a strong point in the contemporary Judaism, and there¬ 
fore it needed no special emphasis. It was otherwise 
with the idea of Fatherhood. 

Not that this idea was unknown to the pagan 
religions, and still less to the religion of Israel. From 
Homer onwards Zeus had borne the name ‘ Father of 
gods and men.’ But this was a superficial idea: it 
meant little more than ‘ originator.’ This sense also 
appears in the older Jewish literature, but with further 
connotations added to it. God is more particularly the 
Father of His people Israel (cf. Dt 14 1 32 s , Jer 3 19 31 s - 20 ), 
in a yet deeper sense of the righteous in Israel (Is 63 16 ), 
and, though not with the same wealth of meaning, of 
the individual (Mai 2 10 , Sir 23*- 4 ). 

It is the tenderest side of the teaching of OT 
(Ps 103 13 ) which is now taken up and developed. It 
becomes indeed the corner-stone of the NT teaching 


76 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


about God. The name ‘ Father ’ becomes in NT what 
the name Jehovah (Jahveh) was in OT, the fullest 
embodiment of revelation. If it is prominent in the 
apostolic writings, this is traceable ultimately to the 
teaching of Jesus (cf. Ro 8 15 and comms.). The title 
belongs primarily to Jesus Himself as ‘the Son’ (6 
Ila rrjp [xov , esp. Mt n 27 ). Through Him it descends 
to His followers (6 Ilar^p vfxiov, 6 Haryp o-ov, Mt 

5 16 . 45 . 48 6 1 . 4 . 6 . 8 . 9 . 14 . . 15 etc# ) # But the l ove Q f God 

as Father extends beyond these limits even to ‘ the 
unthankful and evil ’ (Lk 6 s5 , Mt 5 45 ). The presentation 
of God as Father culminates in the parable of the 
Prodigal Son. Older conceptions of God find their 
counterpart in the Elder Brother of this parable (Lk 
i5 25ff - contrasted with v. 20 ). The application which is 
thus made of the Fatherhood of God invests the 
teaching of Jesus with wonderful tenderness and beauty 
(Mt 6 32 7 11 io 29 - Lk 12 32 etc.). 

§ 33 . (2) The Kingdom of God. — If the conception of 
God as Father does not exclude His majesty as King, 
no more does the conception of His Kingdom exclude 
that of children gathered together in His family. Still, 
the leading term to denote those active relations of 
God with man, with which the mission of Jesus is 
specially connected, is rj /?acriA.eia tov Oeov or rwv 
ovpavG) v. 

The use of these terms suggests a number of ques¬ 
tions which are still much debated, (i.) Were both 
names originally used? Or if one is to be preferred, 
which ? (ii.) What is the meaning of the phrase ? 

Does jSao-tXeta = ‘ kingdom ’ or ‘ reign ’ ? (iii.) When 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 


77 


we have determined this, with what order of ideas is 
the phrase to be associated ? With the later Judaism ? 
or with the teaching of the prophets ? Or does it 
belong to the more novel element in the teaching of our 
Lord ? (iv.) Is the Kingdom merely conceived of from 

the side of man or from the side of God ? Is it some¬ 
thing which man works out or which is bestowed upon 
him ? (v.) Is it present or future ? Was it in course 

of realization during the lifetime of Jesus Himself, or is 
it mainly eschatological ? (vi.) Is it inward or out¬ 

ward ? A moral reformation or the founding of a 
society? (vii.) Was the conception as at first framed 
national or universal? 

These questions are put as alternatives. And they 
are usually so regarded. But it may be well to say at 
once that in almost every case there seems to be real 
evidence for both sides of the proposition ; so that the 
inference is that the conception to which they relate was 
in fact many-sided, and included within itself a number 
of different nuances , all more or less valid. And the 
reason for this appears to be, that our Lord took up 
a conception which He found already existing, and, 
although Lie definitely discarded certain aspects of it, 
left others as they were, some with and some without a 
more express sanction, while He added new ones. The 
centre or focus of the idea is thus gradually shifted; 
and while parts of it belong to so much of the older 
current conception as was not explicitly repealed, 
other parts of it are a direct expression of the new 
spirit introduced into it. The one element definitely 
expelled was that which associated the inauguration of 
the Kingdom with political violence and revolution. 


78 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


(i.) The Name . — It is well known that the phrase 
rj 13a<nXeia rtuy ovpavu>v for rj /3aa. r. Ocov is a peculi¬ 
arity of the First Gospel (where it occurs thirty-two 
times), and that it receives no sanction from the other 
Synoptics. Neither can Jn 3 s , where the reading is 
distinctly Western, be quoted in support of it. Hence 
some have thought that it was a coinage of Matthew. 
It occurs, however, also in Ev. sec. Heb. (Handmann, 
p. 89); and the fact that /?acr. r. 6 . is found in Mt 
12 28 21 31 - 43 would go to show that the evangelist had 
no real objection to that form, while the corresponding 
phrase Tvar-qp 6 cV rots ovpavols though it disappears 
from Lk n 2 is verified by Mk n 25 . Moreover, we 
know that ‘ heaven ’ was a common metonymy for 
‘ God ’ in the language of the time (cf. also Mk io 21 , 
Lk io 20 1 2 s3 ), and that the particular phrase ‘kingdom 
of heaven ’ (though not exactly in the sense usually 
assigned to it; see below under ii.) occurs repeatedly 
in the Talmud. It seems, therefore, on the whole 
probable that both forms were used by our Lord 
Himself. In any case they may be regarded as 
equivalents. 

(ii.) Meaning. — The phrase in both its forms is 
ambiguous: it may mean either ‘ kingdom ’ or ‘ reign,’ 
‘ sovereignty,’ ‘ rule ’ of heaven, or of God. It appears 
that in the Talmud the latter signification is the more 
common (Schiirer, NT Zeitgesch . 3 ii. 539 n. [Eng. tr. 
11. ii. 171] ; Edersheim, Life and Times , etc. i. 267 f.). 
And though the former is that more usually adopted by 
commentators, there seems to be no reason why re¬ 
course should not be had to the latter where it is more 
natural (as, eg., in Lk 17 s0 - a ). The phrase covers both 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 


79 


senses, and the one will frequently be found to shade 
off into the other. The best definition known to the 
writer is one given incidentally by Dr. Hort (Life and 
Letters , ii. 273), ‘ the world of invisible laws by which 
God is ruling and blessing His creatures.’ This is the 
most fundamental meaning; all others are secondary. 
The ‘ laws ’ in question are ‘ a world,’ inasmuch as they 
have a connexion and coherence of their own; they form 
a system, a cosmos within the cosmos ; they come direct 
from ‘ heaven,’ or from God ; and they are ‘ invisible ’ 
in their origin, though they may work their way to 
visibility. 

(iii.) Associations. — The sense just assigned was that 
which was most fundamental in the thought of Jesus. 
It was that which He saw ought to be the true sense, 
however much it might be missed by His contem¬ 
poraries. It was deeper and subtler than the concep¬ 
tion of Psalmist and Prophet, even than the bright 
and exhilarating picture of Ps i45 u ‘ 13 , because it was 
compatible with any kind of social condition, and be¬ 
cause it did not turn mainly on the majestic exercise 
of power. And if this was true of the later and more 
developed conception, much more was it true of the 
earlier notion of the theocracy, which was simply that 
of the Israelite State with a Prophet or Judge at the 
head instead of a King (1 S 12 7 ' 12 ). The contemporaries 
of Jesus when they spoke of the * Kingdom of God ’ 
thought chiefly of an empire contrasted with the great 
world-empires, more particularly the Roman, which galled 
them at the moment. And the two features which 
caught their imagination most were the throwing off 
of the hated yoke and the transference of supremacy 


So 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


from the heathen to Israel. This was to be brought 
about by a catastrophe which was to close the existing 
order of things, and which therefore took a shape that 
was eschatological. 

This eschatological and catastrophic side Jesus did 
not repudiate, though He gave a different turn to it, 
but the essence of His conception was independent 
of all convulsions. The simplest paraphrase for ‘ the 
Kingdom of God ’ is the clause which follows the peti¬ 
tion for the coming of the Kingdom in the Lord’s 
Prayer: ‘ Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.’ 
The only difference is that the Prayer perhaps hints 
rather more at the co-operation of human wills. This is 
not excluded in the idea of the Kingdom, which is, how¬ 
ever, primarily the working out of the Will of God by God 
Himself. 

(iv.) The Nature of the Kingdom: how far super¬ 
natural ? — The very name of the Kingdom ‘ of heaven 
or of God ’ implies that it has its origin in the world 
above. It ‘ comes ’ (epx^Oac, Mt 6 10 , Mk 9 1 , Lk 
II 2 17 20 ; iyyt&i v, Mt 3 2 4 17 io 7 etc.; cfiOdvew, Mt 
i2 28 = Lk n 20 ); it is ‘given’ (Mt 21 43 ) and ‘received’ 
(Mk io 15 = Lk 18 17 ) ; it is ‘ prepared ’ by God (Mt 25 s4 ) ; 
it is ‘ inherited ’ (#.), and men ‘ enter into ’ it (Mt 5 20 
19 23 , Jn 3 5 ) ; it is an object of ‘search’ (Mt 6 s3 = Lk 
12 31 , Mt 13 45 ). All this means that it is not built up 
by the labour of man, it is not a product of develop¬ 
ment from below, but ‘ of the creative activity of God ’ 
(Lutgert, Reich Gottes , p. 26). It is a gift bestowed, 
not something to be done, but something to be enjoyed 
(‘Nie eine Aufgabe, wohl aber eine Gabe,’ Holtzmann, 
NT Th. p. 202, partly after Lutgert). It is a prize, the 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 


Si 


highest of all prizes (Mt i3 44 ^ 5 ), corresponding to the 
summum bonum of pagan philosophy. 

This part of the conception has a considerable range, 
according as the context points to the popular view of the 
Messianic Kingdom as implying outward conditions of 
splendour, abundance, and enjoyment, or as it points to 
what we have called the inner thought of Jesus, the invis¬ 
ible laws of God’s working, taken into and welcomed by 
the individual soul, as in the parables of the Pearl and 
the Treasure in the Field. 

These parables show that there is a place, though a 
subordinate place, left for human effort, the co-operation 
of the human will with the Divine. The process of 
‘ seeking ’ implies both effort and renunciation. There 
must be a concentrating of the powers of the soul upon 
the Will of God, if that Will is to be really done; but 
where it is done it brings its own exceeding great 
reward (Lk 6 s8 ). 

From this point of view it may be said, with Holtz- 
mann (NT Th. i. 202-207), that the negative side of the 
conception is the Forgiveness of Sins as the first 
condition of entrance into the Kingdom, and that the 
positive side of it is the active practice of Righteous¬ 
ness with the peace and contentment which that practice 
brings. 

(v.) Present or Future? — There can be no real ques¬ 
tion that the Kingdom is presented in both lights as 
present and as future. Strictly speaking, the future is 
divided, and the notes of time are threefold — present, 
near future, and more distant future. Take, for in¬ 
stance, the following passages: Mt 12 28 (= Lk n 20 ) ‘If 
I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the 
6 


82 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


Kingdom of God come (tyOao-ev) upon you ’; Mk i 15 
( = Mt 4 17 ) ‘The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of 
God is at hand ’ ( rjyyiKtv ) ; Mk 9 1 1 | ‘ There be some 
here . . . which shall in nowise taste of death till they 
see the Kingdom of God come (i\r)\vOv lav) with power.’ 
The only one of these passages about which there can 
be any doubt is the second (see above, p. 35), and 
even that belongs to the common groundwork of the 
Synoptic tradition, and it is supported by Mt io 7 ||. If 
the latest of these dates still falls within the lifetime of 
the then generation, there is a group of parables (the 
Mustard Seed, the Wheat and Tares, the Drag-net) 
which would seem at once to bring the Kingdom into 
the present, and to postpone its consummation. 

These apparent inconsistencies are probably to be 
explained in the same way as others which we meet 
with. The future coming, the more or less distant 
coming, of which the Son Himself does not know the 
day or the hour, is the eschatological coming of the 
current expectation, which, if we follow our authorities, 
we must believe that Jesus also shared. There was, 
however, a certain ambiguity even in this expectation 
as popularly held: it was not clear exactly in what 
relation of time the coming of the Messiah and the 
establishment of His Kingdom stood to the end of all 
things. And this ambiguity was necessarily heightened 
by the peculiar nature of the coming of Christ, and the 
conviction which gradually forced itself upon the minds 
of the disciples that there must needs be a double 
Coming, — one in shame, the other in triumph; one 
therefore which for them was past, and another still in 
the future. 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 


83 


But, apart from all this, it will be apparent that the 
more distinctive conception of the Kingdom as the 
1 world of invisible laws ’ by which God works is not 
subject to the same limitations of time. In this sense 
it embraces the whole providential scheme of things 
from the beginning; though, as we have said, it is 
really a cosmos within the cosmos, and it has its cul¬ 
minating periods and moments, such as was above all 
that which dates from the Incarnation. The most 
characteristic expression of this aspect of the Kingdom 
would be the parables of the Leaven and of the Seed 
growing secretly. 

(vi.) Inward or Outward ? — A like conclusion holds 
good for the question which we have next to ask 
ourselves: Are we to think of the Kingdom of God as 
visible or as invisible ? Is it an influence, a force or 
collection of forces, or is it an institution ? We are 
familiar with the very common and often quite super¬ 
ficial identification of the Kingdom with the Church. 
Is this justified ? Many recent writers answer this 
question emphatically, No (list with reff. in Holtzmann, 
NT Th . i. 208). And it is true that there are certain 
passages by which it seems to be excluded. 

Conspicuous among these are the verses Lk I7 20 - 21 0 vk ipxerai 
7 ] /3. r. 0. fiera TrapaTrjpti<re(os. ovdt ipovaiv, Tdoi) <55e J) inei. tdoti yap 
ij (3. t. 0. ivrbs iarlv. A majority of leading German scholars, 
including Schurer ( Die Predigt. J. C. p. 18) and Holtzmann (with 
a slight modification, ‘in your reach’), take the last words as 
meaning ‘in your midst,’ the main ground being that they are 
addressed to the Pharisees. But Field seems to have shown 
( Ot . Norv. ad. loc.') that this interpretation is lexically untenable 
(‘no sound example’), and that the better rendering is in animis 
vesiris. 

But, on the other hand, parables like the Wheat and 


8 4 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


the Tares and the Drag-net are most naturally explained 
of a visible community; and there can be no doubt 
that the popular expectation was of a visible kingdom, 
such as that in which the sons of Zebedee sought for 
a chief place. 

If we keep to the clue which we have hitherto 
followed, the facts will be sufficiently clear. The King¬ 
dom in its highest and most Christian sense is the 
working of ‘ invisible laws ’ which penetrate below the 
surface and are gradually progressive and expansive in 
their operation. But in this as in other cases spiritual 
forces take to themselves an outward form; they are 
enshrined in a vessel of clay, finer or coarser as the case 
may be, not only in men as individuals but in men as 
a community or communities. The society then becomes 
at once a vehicle and instrument of the forces by which 
it is animated, not a perfect vehicle or a perfect instru¬ 
ment,— a field of wheat mingled with tares, a net 
containing bad fish as well as good, — but analogous to 
those other visible institutions by which God accom¬ 
plishes His gracious purposes amongst men. 

(vii.) National or Universal ?—The same principle 
holds good throughout the whole of this analysis of the 
idea of the Kingdom. The aptest figure to express it 
is that of growth. It is a germ, secretly and silently 
insinuated, and secretly and silently working until it 
puts forth first the blade, then the ear, then the full 
corn in the ear. It is a mistake to cut a section of that 
which is thus ceaselessly expanding, and to label it with 
a name which might be true at one particular moment 
but would not be true at the next. The Kingdom of 
God is not the theocracy of the OT, nor the eschato- 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 


85 


logical Kingdom of the Apocalypses, nor the Christian 
Church of the present day, or of the Middle Ages, or of 
the Fathers. These are phases through which it passes ; 
but it outgrows one after the other. For this reason, 
because He foresaw this inevitable and continuous 
growth, the chief Founder and permanent Vicegerent 
of the Kingdom showed Himself, as we might think, 
indifferent to the precise degree of extension which 
it was to receive during His life on earth; He was 
content to say that He ‘ was not sent but unto the lost 
sheep of the house of Israel’ (Mt 15 24 ), though within a 
generation His gospel was about to be carried to the 
ends of the then known earth. It was enough that the 
seed was planted — planted in a soil suited to it, and 
under conditions that ensured its full vitality, ‘ like a 
tree by the streams of water, that bringeth forth its 
fruit in its season, whose leaf also doth not wither.’ It 
is characteristic of God’s processes that there is no 
hurry or impatience about them; the Master was not so 
anxious to reap immediate fruit as the disciple (Ro i 13 ), 
and therefore He calmly left it to His followers to see 
‘greater things’ than He saw Himself (Jn 14 12 ) ; but 
these ‘ greater things ’ are none the less virtually His 
own. 

§ 34 . (3) The Members of the Kingdom . — As the 
‘ Reign of God,’ the fiaaiXeia rov Oeov denotes certain 
Divine forces of laws which are at work in the world; 
as the Kingdom of God it was at most stages a society, 
but at all stages a definite sphere or area, into which 
men might enter, and, by entering, become partakers 
of the same Divine forces or subject to the same Divine 


86 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


laws. It was therefore a matter of much moment what 
were the conditions of entrance into the Kingdom, and 
what was the character impressed upon its members. 
The two things run into each other, because it was 
required of those who entered that they should possess 
at least the germs of the character to be developed in 
them. 

(i.) Conditions of Entrance. — These are clearly laid 
down: ‘ Except ye turn, and become as little children, 
ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven ’ 
(Mt 18 3 ). There was to be a definite change of mind, a 
break with the sinful past. This was to be ratified by 
submission to the rite of baptism, which, in the dis¬ 
course with Nicodemus, is described as a new birth of 
‘water and Spirit’ (Jn 3 s ). The entrance into the 
Kingdom is something more than a deliberate act of 
the man himself, it is a self-surrender to Divine in¬ 
fluences. The response on the part of God is forgive¬ 
ness, which is the permanent concomitant of baptism, 
not only that of John, but also that in the name of 
Christ (Mk i 4 ||, comp, with Ac 2 s8 , Lk 24J 7 etc.). 

(ii.) The Character of the Members. — The typical 
character of the members of the Kingdom is that of a 
‘ little child,’ in which the prominent features are 
innocence, simplicity of aim, absence of self-assertion, 
trustfulness, and openness to influences from above. 
A sketch of such a character is given in the Beatitudes 
(Mt 5 s-9 ; the || in Lk 6 20 ' 26 refers rather to conditions 
or circumstances suited to the character). The Chris¬ 
tian ideal here depicted stands out in marked contrast 
to most other ideals of what is admirable in man. The 
qualities commended (‘poor in spirit’ — where the 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 87 

Matthaean gloss is in any case right in sense, — ‘ meek,’ 

‘ merciful,’ ‘ pure in heart,’ ‘ peacemakers ’) are all of 
the gentle, submissive, retiring order. And this is 
fully borne out by other sayings, the cheek turned to 
the smiter, the litigant forestalled, the requisition of 
labour offered freely, and even doubled (Mt 5 38_41 ||), 
enemies to be loved, prosecutors to be prayed for (ib. 
vv. 43, 44 ), the sword to be sheathed (Mt 26 s2 ), the duties 
of charity strongly inculcated (Lk io 25 ^ 7 ), the duty of 
forgiveness of injuries (Mt iS 233 -), service greater than 
authority (Lk 2 2 25ff ). And it is noticeable that the 
same type of character is praised by St. Paul (Ro 12 21 
‘Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with 
good’; cf. ch. 13). The whole duty of man is summed 
up in love to God and love to one’s neighbour (again cf. 
Ro I3 8-10 ). We observe, too, that the ethical teaching 
of Jesus is almost confined to that side of ethics which 
touches upon religion. Allusions to civic and industrial 
duties are very few, and those negative rather than 
positive (Mt 18 27 22 21 = Ro 13 7 ). 

(iii.) Paradoxes of Christianity. — It is only natural 
that these features in the teaching of Christ should be 
taken hold of and made a charge against Christianity, 
as they have been from Suetonius onwards (Domit. 15, 
‘ contemptissimse inertiae,’ of Flavius Clemens, probably 
as a Christian; cf. Tertull. Apol. 42, ‘ infructuosi in 
negotiis dicimur’). And it may be doubted whether 
even yet the full intention of our Lord has been 
fathomed, and the exact place of the specifically Chris¬ 
tian ideal in relation to civic and social duties ascer¬ 
tained. The following suggestions may be offered. 

The precepts in question were probably addressed 


88 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


in the first instance, not to promiscuous multitudes, 
but to the disciples. If certain passages (as Mt 5 1 ) may 
be quoted to the contrary, it should be remembered 
that these introductory notes as to the circumstances 
under which discourses were spoken are among the 
least trustworthy parts of the Gospel tradition, and are 
often nothing more than vague conjectures of the evan¬ 
gelists. The type of character described bears on its 
face the marks of being intended for the little com¬ 
munity of Christians (cf. Latham, Pastor Pas/orum , 

p- 253)- 

As such we can see that it had a very special appro¬ 
priateness. It was not an accident that Christianity 
is the religion of the Crucified. The Cross is but the 
culminating expression of a spirit which was char¬ 
acteristic of it throughout. Its peculiar note is Victory 
through Suffering. An idea like that of Islam, making 
its way by the sword, was abhorrent to it from the 
first. Jesus came to be the Messiah of the Jews, but 
the narratives of the Temptation teach us that, from 
the very beginning of His career, He stripped off from 
His conception of Messiahship all that was political, 
all thought of propagating His claims by force. A 
new mode of propagating religion was deliberately 
chosen, and carried through with uncompromising 
thoroughness. The disciple was not above His Mas¬ 
ter; and the example which Jesus set in founding 
His faith by dying for it, was an example which His 
disciples were called upon to follow into all its logical 
consequences. Christianity, the true Christianity, carries 
no arms ; it wins its way by lowly service, by patience, by 
self-sacrifice. 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 


89 


History shows that there are no instruments of re¬ 
ligious propaganda comparable to these. It also shows 
that the type of character connected with them is of 
the very highest attractiveness and beauty. Is it a 
complete type, a type to which we can apply the 
Kantian maxim, ‘ So act as if your action was to be 
a law for all human beings ’ ? This would seem to be 
more than we ought to say. It is not clear that the 
Christian type would be what it is if it were not built 
upon, and if it did not presuppose, a certain structure 
of society, to which other motives had contributed. 
The ethical ideal of Christianity is the ideal of a Church. 
It does not follow that it is also the ideal of the State. 
If we are to say the truth, we must admit that parts of 
it would become impracticable if they were transferred 
from the individual standing alone to governments or 
individuals representing society. It could not be in¬ 
tended that the officers of the law should turn the 
cheek to the criminal. The apostles were to bear 
no sword, but the judge ‘beareth not the sword in 
vain.’ 

May we not say that the functions of Christian morals 
— specifically Christian morals — are these? (1) At their 
first institution to form a vehicle, the only possible 
vehicle, for the Christian religion. So far as Chris¬ 
tianity has taken a real and genuine hold upon society, 
it is through these means and no others. Other things 
may have commended it for a time, but no trust can be 
placed in them. (2) The Christian motive acting in 
the midst of other motives gradually leavens and 
modifies them, imparting to them something which 
they had not before. If we look round us at the 


90 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


principles which at this moment regulate the action of 
States, in their external or international relations as 
well as those which are internal, we shall see that if 
these principles are not wholly Christian, they are also 
not pagan. They have a certain coherence, and they 
mark a very conspicuous advance as compared with 
the principles of the ancient world. Christianity has 
shown a power of modifying what it does not altogether 
supplant. The world even outside Christianity is still 
God’s world. It is a world of which the essential char¬ 
acteristic is that it is progressive; and it may conduce 
most to this progress that it should be brought under 
the influence of the Christian precept, not pure but in 
dilution. And (3) may we not draw from this the 
augury that in the end, at some time which we cannot 
see, the social structure may be still more fully recast, 
under the influence of Christianity: ‘Nation shall not 
lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn 
war any more ’ ? We can conceive a condition of things 
in which the Church became coextensive with the State, 
and in which religion penetrated the body politic in a 
sense in which it has never done so yet. When that 
time came, conduct which now would be only quixotic 
might be rational, and required by the public conscience. 

When the verse Mt 5^ ‘ Give to him that asketh 
thee,’ etc., is criticized from the point of view of modern 
political economy, the mistake is in applying a standard 
which is out of place. In those days the natural and, 
indeed, the only outlet of the kind for benefiting the 
poor was almsgiving; and our Lord’s main object 
was to strengthen the motive, which was in itself a 
thoroughly right one. It would have been in vain to 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 


91 


anticipate methods which God has evidently intended 
to be the result of long experience. The argument 
from analogy comes in here with great force. God 
might have removed many forms of human ill with a 
word; but as it is, He has been pleased to let improved 
methods, and the wisdom to use them, grow gradu¬ 
ally and grow together. The advance which mankind 
slowly makes is a solid advance, and an advance not 
here and there, but all along the line. 

We have seen that our Lord was not careful to guard 
against misunderstandings. It has been a salutary 
exercise for His followers to find out what was the 
true sense of His sayings for themselves. 

§ 35 . (4) The Messiah. — We are not concerned here 
with the very remarkable historical evolution of the 
claim of our Lord to be the Messiah, which will come 
before us in connexion with the narrative of His life. 
At present we have to do only with His teaching on 
the subject, and that mainly with reference to the 
deeply significant names by which His claim was 
conveyed. 

(i.) The Christ. — We need not delay over the title 
‘ Messiah,’ ‘ Christ,’ ‘ Anointed,’ which is simply that 
of the current Jewish expectation. It is repeatedly 
applied to our Lord by others, and on three occasions, 
at least, expressly accepted by Himself (Jn 4 s6 , Mt 16 17 , 
Mk 14 61 - 62 ]|, cf. Jn n 27 ); but only once does our Lord 
use the term of Himself (Jn 17 3 T rjaovv Xpicrrov), and 
that in a passage where we cannot be sure that the 
wording is not that of the evangelist. In like manner 
the title ‘ Elect ’ (eKA.eA.ey/icVos, Lk 9 s5 ; ckAcktos, Lk 


92 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


2 3 35 )> which is also current (cf. Enoch 40 5 ), is applied 
to our Lord, but not by Himself. 

(ii.) Son of David. — Much the same may be said 
of another title which belongs to a prominent side of 
the expectation. ‘ Son of David ’ occurs several times 
(on the lips of the crowd at and before the triumphal 
entry, of the Syrophcenician woman, of Bartimaeus, 
of the Pharisees), but Jesus Himself does not use it, 
and rather propounds a difficulty in regard to it (Mk 
I 235 ||). 

(iii.) Son of Man. — The really characteristic title 
which occurs some eighty times in the Gospels, and is 
without doubt the one which Jesus chose to express 
His own view of His office, is ‘ the Son of Man.’ 
Whereas the other titles are used by others of Him, 
this is used only by Him and of Himself. What He 
desired to convey by this is a question at once of no 
little difficulty and of great importance (‘ Die Frage 
gehort zu den verwickeltsten ja verfahrensten der 
ganzen neutest. Theologie,’ Holtzmann). 

The starting-point for this, as well as for the idea of 
the kingdom, is, we may be sure, Dn 7 13 . The ‘ Son 
of Man ’ in that passage, as originally written, stood 
for Israel. The four world-empires are represented 
by beasts, the dominion that falls to Israel is that of a 
man. But in this as in other respects the passage was 
interpreted Messianically. In the Similitudes of the 
Book of Enoch (chs. 37-70) the Son of Man takes a 
prominent place. He is a person, and a superhuman 
person. It is He who holds the great judgment to 
which the Apocalyptic writings look forward. The 
attributes ascribed to Him are all more or less directly 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 


93 


connected with this judgment, which is at once to 
vindicate the righteous, and finally to put down the 
wicked. The date of this portion of the Book of Enoch 
has been much debated, but opinion at the present time 
is still more preponderantly in favour of the view that 
it is pre-Christian (between b.c. 94-64, Charles, Enoch , 
p. 29k). The language of the Gospels requires that the 
title as applied to a person and to the Messiah should 
be not entirely new. It also requires that it should be 
not perfectly understood and familiar (Mt 16 13 , Jn 12 34 ). 
It is probable that its use did not go beyond a small 
circle, the particular circle to which the Similitudes of 
Enoch belonged. This, however, would be enough to 
give the phrase a certain currency, and to make it at 
least suggest association with the Messiah. 

It is associated with Him, especially in His char¬ 
acter as Judge, and as the chief actor in that series of 
events which marks the end of the age, and the reversal 
of the places of good and wicked. This sense Jesus 
did not discard. It appears unmistakably in a number 
of passages (Mt 13 41 16 28 19 28 24 30ff - 25 31ff - 26 s4 etc.). 
But at the same time there can be no doubt that 
He read into it a number of other ideas, new and 
original, just as He read them into the conception of 
the Kingdom. 

What is most distinctive in this novel element in the 
teaching of Jesus? There is an increasing tendency 
among scholars to lay stress on the Aramaic original 
of the phrase. The Aramaic equivalent is said to mean 
and to be the only way which they had of express¬ 
ing ‘ Man ’ (generically, i.e. ‘ Mankind ’). Hence the 
attempt has been made to interpret the phrase im- 


94 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


personally, and to get rid more or less of its Messianic 
application (see Holtzmann, NT Th. i. 256f¥.). It is 
true that an impersonal sense will suit such a passage 
as Mk 2 s8 ‘ The Sabbath was made for man . . . 
therefore the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.’ 
At the same time this is by no means the necessary 
sense. And Wellhausen, who is one of those who 
most emphatically maintain the equation ‘ Son of Man ’ 
= ‘ Man,’ yet sees that the expression must have been 
used by our Lord to designate His own person {Israel, 
u. Jiid. Gesch . 2 p. 381). Nor can this conclusion really 
be avoided by such an expedient as Holtzmann’s, who 
calls attention to the comparative rarity of the title in 
the early chapters and early stages of the history {e.g. 
in Mark only 2 1028 ), and would explain it during this 
period impersonally, and only after St. Peter’s con¬ 
fession personally. Against this and against more 
sweeping attempts {eg. by Martineau, Seat of Authority , 
p. 339) to get rid of the Messianic signification alto¬ 
gether, it may be enough to point out that if reasonable 
critics like Holtzmann allow, and a narrative such as 
that of the Temptation seems to prove, that Jesus from 
the first really assumed the character of the Messiah, 
and if our oldest authorities with one consent treat the 
title Son of Man as in the later stages Messianic, it is 
fair to presume that it is Messianic also in the earlier. 
If the Similitudes of the Book of Enoch are pre- 
Christian, this conclusion would amount almost to 
certainty. 

It is, however, fair to argue from the natural sense 
of the phrase in Aramaic, that by His use of it, Jesus 
did place Himself in some relation to humanity as a 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 


95 


whole. And we are led to form the same inference by 
the conspicuous use of the corresponding Hebrew in 
Ps 8 4 ‘ What is man that thou art mindful of him ? 
and the son of man that thou visitest him ? ’ Here 
the parallelism shows that ‘ son of man ’ = ‘ man.’ We 
also know from He 2 6 ' 10 that the psalm was at a very 
early date applied to Jesus as the Messiah, and at a 
still earlier date (the Baptism) we have the neigh¬ 
bouring Ps 2 7 applied to Him. It seems to follow, or 
at least to be a very natural presumption, that these 
two psalms early became an object of close study 
to Jesus, and helped to give outward shape to His 
conceptions. 

Ps 8 seems specially adapted to fall in with these, 
as it brings out with equal strength the two elements 
which we know to have entered into the consciousness 
of Jesus — the combination of lowliness with loftiness, 
the physical weakness of man as contrasted with his 
sublime calling and destiny. We can see here the 
appropriateness of the application of one and the same 
title to Him who, on the one hand, ‘had not where to 
lay his head,’ and who must needs ‘go as it was written 
of him,’ and who yet, on the other hand, looked to come 
again ‘ with power ’ in His Kingdom. 

We do not like to use such very modern phraseology 
as the ‘ ideal of humanity,’ ‘ the representative of the 
human race’; and yet it would seem that Jesus did 
deliberately connect with His own person such ideas 
as these: He fused them as it were into the central 
idea of Messiahship, and we can see how the Jewish 
conception of the Messiah was enlarged and enriched 
by them. If the Messiah comes out in the claim to 


9 6 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


forgive sins, it is the Son of Man whose mission it was 
‘to seek and to save that which was lost’ (Lk 19 10 ), 
‘ not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give 
his life a ransom for many’ (Mk io 45 ||). 

Here we have another connexion in which the name 
is frequently used. The prophecies of the Resurrection 
and of the Second Coming are closely associated with 
the fatal end of the First: ‘ The Son of Man must 
suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and 
the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and 
after three days rise again ’ (Mk 8 31 etc.). If we ask 
for the OT original of this ‘ Saviour through suffering,’ 
no doubt it is the Second Part of Isaiah, and especially 
Is 53. Still, it would be rather too much to describe 
this idea as embodied in the title ‘ Son of Man.’ It is 
embodied in the character of the Son of Man as con¬ 
ceived by Jesus, but not exactly in the name. The 
name which expressed it was the ‘ Servant of Jehovah ’ 
(7rats Kvpiov ); and this name was undoubtedly applied 
to Christ by the Church as soon as it began to reflect 
upon His life and mission (cf. Ac 3 la 26 4 s7, ®, Mt 12 18 ), 
but we have no evidence that Jesus used it of Himself. 
One reason for the choice of the name ‘ Son of Man ’ 
probably was that it admitted and favoured these 
associations, even if it did not directly suggest them. 

This comprehensive and deeply significant title 
touched at the one end the Messianic and eschato¬ 
logical expectation through the turn which had been 
given to it in one section of Judaism (the Book of 
Enoch). At the other and opposite end it touched the 
idea of the Suffering Servant. But at the centre it 
is broadly based upon an infinite sense of brotherhood 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 


97 


with toiling and struggling humanity, which He who 
most thoroughly accepted its conditions was fittest also 
to save. As Son of God, Jesus looked upwards to the 
Father ; as Son of Man, He looked outwards upon His 
brethren, the sheep who had no shepherd. 

(iv.) Son of God. — Only once in the Synoptics (Mt 
27^) and in a few places in the Fourth Gospel (Jn 
io 36 cf. 5^ 9 s5 var. lec. n 4 ) is it hinted that Jesus 
directly assumed this title. It is repeatedly given to 
Him by others — by the Baptist (Jn i 34 ), by Nathanael 
(Jn i 49 ), by Satan hypothetically (Mt 4 s ), as also by the 
crowd (Mt 27 40 ), by the possessed (Mk 3 n ||), by the 
disciples (Mt 14 33 ), by the centurion (Mk 15 39 = Mt 27 s4 ), 
and by evangelists (Mk i 1 v.l. Jn 3 18 20 31 ). 

At the same time it is abundantly clear that the title 
was really assumed from the indirect mode in which 
Jesus constantly speaks of God as ‘My Father.’ This 
is very frequent in the Synoptics as well as in St. John 
(Mt 7 21 io 32 11 27 15 13 16 17 etc.). And although, as we 
have seen, the consciousness which finds expression in 
this phrase becomes the basis of an extended doctrine 
of the Divine Fatherhood (‘ the Father,’ ‘ our Father,’ 
‘ thy Father,’ ‘ your Father ’), there is nevertheless a 
distinct interval between the sense in which God can 
be claimed as Father by men, even the innermost circle 
of the disciples, and that in which He is Father to the 
Son. In this respect the passage Mt n 27 = Lk io 22 is 
quite explicit (cf. also the graduated scale of being in 
Mk 13 32 = Mt 24 s6 ). Although this passage stands out 
somewhat conspicuously in the Synoptics, the context in 
which it occurs is so original and so beyond the reach 
of invention, while it supplies so marvellously the key 
7 


98 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


to that which distinguishes the history of Jesus from 
other histories, that doubt cannot reasonably be cast 
upon it. It is confirmed by the sense in which the 
title ‘Son of God’ is taken by the Jews — not merely 
by the populace but by the learned (Mt 2 7 41 * 43 , cf. 
Mk i5 31, 32 , n 19 7 ). And, on the other hand, it 
confirms sufficiently the substantial accuracy of like 
passages in the Fourth Gospel ( e.g . io 30,38 ). We are 
thus prepared for the unanimity with which the Church 
at the earliest date fixed upon this title to convey its 
sense of the uniqueness of Christ’s nature (Ac 9 20 , Ro 
i 4 , Gal 2 20 , Eph 4 13 , He 4 14 etc., 1 Jn 4 15 etc., Rev 2 18 ). 

This aspect of the question will come before us more 
fully later. We content ourselves for the present 
with observing that the teaching of Jesus, reserved 
and reticent as it is, presupposes as its background 
this wholly exceptional relation of ‘ the Son ’ to ‘ the 
Father.’ From that as centre radiate a number of 
other relationships to His immediate disciples, to the 
Church of which they formed the nucleus, and to man¬ 
kind. The Sonship of Jesus is intimately connected 
with His work as Messiah (Titius, p. 116). It is in 
this character that ‘ all things are delivered ’ to Him 
(Mt 11 27 1 |), in this character that He is enabled to give 
to the world a revelation of the Father (#.), in this 
character that He carries out His work of redemption 
even to the death (Mk i4 36 ||). 

§ 36 . (5) The Paraclete and the Tri-unity of God. — In 
the earliest Epistles of St. Paul we find that the Son of 
God is placed side by side with the Father, and is asso¬ 
ciated with Him as the ground of the Church’s being, 


THE TEACHING OF JESUS 


99 


the source of spiritual grace, and as co-operating with 
Him in the providential ordering of events (i Th i 1 , 
2 Th i 1 , i Th 3 llf ). It is difficult to describe the 
effect of the language used in any other terms than 
as attributing to the Son a coequal Godhead with the 
Father. And it is remarkable that St. Paul does this, 
within some twenty-two years of the Ascension, not 
as though he were laying down anything new, but 
as something which might be assumed as part of the 
common body of Christian doctrine. 

We observe also that throughout the earliest group 
of Epistles there are frequent references to the work 
of the Holy Spirit as the one great force which lies 
behind at once the missionary activity and the common 
life of the Church of the apostolic age (esp. i Co 12-14, 
but cf. 1 Th i 5f - 4 8 5 19 etc.). This, too, it is assumed 
that all Christians would understand. 

How are we to account for the prevalence of such 
teaching at so early a date, and in a region so far 
removed from the centre of Christianity? It would 
be natural if the Lord Jesus Christ Himself in His 
intercourse with His disciples had prepared them to 
expect a great activity of the Holy Spirit, and if He 
had hinted at relations in the Godhead which made 
it threefold rather than a simple monad. Apart from 
such hints, the common belief of the Church respecting 
Christ Himself and the Holy Spirit seems very difficult 
to understand. Certain previous tendencies in Jewish 
thought might lead up some way towards it, but they 
would leave a wide gap unspanned. 

When, therefore, we find that one Gospel ascribes 
to our Lord rather full and detailed teaching respecting 


L.ofC. 


100 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


the Paraclete, which is explained to be another name 
for the Holy Spirit (Jn 14 16 26 15 26 ), when there is held 
out a clear hope and promise of a new Divine influence 
to take the place of that which is being withdrawn, 
and when in another Gospel we are also told of the 
institution * of a rite associated with a new revelation 
of God under a threefold Name, that of Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit (Mt 28 19 ), these phenomena are just 
what we are prepared for, and just such as we should 
have had to assume even if we had had no definite 
record of them. We may, then, regard them as 
having received — whatever the antecedent claims of 
the documents in which they are found — a very con¬ 
siderable degree of critical verification. The single 
verse 2 Cor 13 14 seems to require something very like 
what we find in St. Matthew and St. John. 

Literature. — Much material of value will be found in the 
works on the Biblical Theology of NT by Weiss, Beyschlag, and 
esp. H. J. Holtzmann (1897). Reference may also be made to 
Bovon, Theol. du NT, Lausanne, 1897. The most considerable 
recent work on the Teaching of Jesus as a whole is Wendt’s 
Lehre Jesu , Gottingen, 1890 (Eng. tr., Charles Scribner’s Sons, N.Y. 
1892). Bruce, The Kingdom of God (1890 and later) embraces the 
Synoptic Gospels only. In the last few years a number of mono¬ 
graphs have appeared on the doctrine of the Kingdom and 
points connected with it — all, it may be said, bringing out some 
real aspect in the doctrine, though in the writer’s opinion too 
often at the expense of other aspects. The series began with 
two prize essays, Die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes , by Issel and 
Schmoller (both Leiden, 1891), and includes treatises with similar 
titles by Schnedermann (Leipzig, 1893, 1895, 1896), J. Weiss 
(Gottingen, 1892), Liitgert (Giitersloh, 1895), Titius (Freiburg 
i. B. u. Leipzig, 1895), Krop (Paris, 1897); also Bousset, Jesu 


* Not, of course, the first institution, but its confirmation as a rite 
and its first association with the triple formula. 



THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 


IOI 


Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum (Gottingen, 1892); 
Paul, Die Vorstellungen vom Messias u. vom Gottesreich (Bonn, 
1895); Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn (Leipzig, 1896); J. Weiss, 
Die Nachfolge Christi (Gottingen, 1895); Grass, Das Verhalten zu 
Jesus (Leipzig, 1895); Ehrhardt, Der Grundcharakter d. Ethik 
Jesu (Freiburg i. B. u. Leipzig, 1895); Wiesen, Die Stellung Jesu 
zum irdischen Gut (Giitersloh, 1895). 


The Miracles of Jesus. 

§ 37 . There has been a certain tendency of late to 
recede from the extreme position in the denial of 
Miracles. Harnack, for instance, writes in reference 
to the Gospel history as follows: ‘ Much that was 
formerly rejected has been re-established on a close 
investigation, and in the light of comprehensive ex¬ 
perience. Who in these days, for example, could 
make such short work of the miraculous cures in 
the Gospels as was the custom of scholars formerly ? ’ 
(Christianity and History, p. 63, Eng. tr.). 

§ 38 . (i.) Different Classes of Miracles. — Partly this 
change of attitude is due to the higher estimate which 
would now be put on the value of the evangelical 
sources generally, as to which something will be said 
below. Partly it would be due to a change of view in 
regard to the supernatural, which is no longer placed 
in direct antagonism to the natural, but which is more 
reasonably explained as resulting from the operation 
of a higher cause in nature. And partly also it would 
be due to the recognition of wider possibilities in 
nature, * more things in heaven and earth ’ than were 
dreamt of in the narrow philosophy of the Aufklarung. 


102 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


(a) In particular, it may be said that medical science 
would have no difficulty in admitting a large class of 
miracles of healing. All those which have to do with 
what would now be called 1 nervous disorders,’ all 
those in which there was a direct action of the mind 
upon the body, would fall into place readily enough. 
Given a personality like that of Jesus, the effect which 
it would have upon disorders of this character would 
be strictly analogous to that which modern medicine 
would seek to produce. The peculiar combination of 
commanding authority with extreme gentleness and 
sympathy would be a healing force of which the value 
could not easily be exaggerated. 

A question would indeed still be left as to the treat¬ 
ment of the cases of what was called ‘ demoniacal 
possession.’ There can be no doubt that Jesus Himself 
shared, broadly speaking, the views of His contem¬ 
poraries in regard to these cases: His methods of 
healing went upon the assumption that they were 
fundamentally what every one, including the patients 
themselves, supposed them to be. We can well believe 
that this was a necessary assumption in order to allow 
the healing influences to operate. We must remember 
that all the ideas of the patient would be adjusted to 
the current belief, and it would be only through them 
that the words and acts of Christ could take effect. 
In the accounts of such miracles we see that there was 
a mutual intelligence between Healer and patient from 
the first (Mk i 24f || 34 || 5 6 ||). It was by means of this 
mutual intelligence that the word of command struck 
home. 

We should be prepared, then, to say that this class 


THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 


103 


of miracles implied accommodation to the ideas of the 
time. But when we speak of ‘ accommodation ’ on 
the part of our Lord, we do not mean a merely 
politic assumption of a particular belief for a particular 
purpose. We mean that the assumption was part of 
the outfit of His incarnate Manhood. There was a 
certain circle of ideas which Jesus accepted in becoming 
Man in the same way in which He accepted a particular 
language with its grammar and vocabulary. 

It would have been wholly out of keeping with the 
general character of His Ministry if Jesus had attacked 
this form of disease in any other way than through the 
belief in regard to it which at that time was universal. 
The scientific description of it has doubtless greatly 
changed. But it is still a question which is probably by 
no means so clear, whether, allowing for its temporary 
and local character, the language then used did not 
contain an important element of truth. The physical 
and moral spheres are perhaps more intimately con¬ 
nected than we suppose. And the unbridled wickedness 
rife in those days may have had physical effects, which 
were not unfitly described as the work of ‘ demons.’ 
The subject is one which it is probable has not yet been 
fully explored. 

(/?) There is, as we have seen, one large class of 
diseases in regard to which the healing force exerted 
by the presence and the word of Jesus has a certain 
amount of analogy in the facts recognized by modern 
medicine. We must not, however, treat that analogy 
as going farther than it does. It does not hold good 
equally for all the forms of disease which are described 
as having been healed. Wherever the body is subject 


104 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


to the action of the mind, there we can give an account 
of the miracle which is to some extent—to a large ex¬ 
tent— rational and intelligible. But in cases in which 
the miracle involves a purely physical process it will 
not be possible to explain it in the same way. 

This other class of miracles will fall rather under the 
same head as those which were wrought, not upon man, 
but upon nature. In regard to these miracles, the 
world is probably not much nearer to a reasoned ac¬ 
count than it was. It must always be remembered that 
the narratives which have come down to us are the 
work of those who expected that Divine action would 
(as we should say) run counter to natural laws and not 
be in harmony with them, and that the more Divine it 
was the more directly it would run counter to them. 
We may be sure that if the miracles of the first century 
had been wrought before trained spectators of the nine¬ 
teenth, the version of them would be quite different. 
But to suppose this is to suppose what is impossible, 
because all God’s dealings with men are adapted to the 
age to which they belong, and cannot be transferred to 
another age. If God intended to manifest Himself 
specially to the nineteenth century, we should expect 
Him to do so by other means. We are then compelled 
to take the accounts as they have come down to us. 
And we are aware beforehand that any attempt to 
translate them into our own habits of thought must be 
one of extreme difficulty, if not doomed to failure. 

§ 39 . (ii.) Critical Expedients for eliminating Miracle. 
— In view of the difficulty of giving a rational (i.e. a 
twentieth century) version of miracle, it is not surpris- 


THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 


105 


ing that recourse should be had to critical expedients 
for explaining away Miracle altogether; in other words, 
to account for the narratives of miracles without assum¬ 
ing that objective facts corresponding to them really 
occurred. The expedients most in favour are: (a) 

imitation of similar stories in OT; (/?) exaggeration of 
natural occurrences; (y) translation of what was origin¬ 
ally parable into external fact. These are causes which 
have about them nothing violent or incredible, and we 
may believe that they were to some extent really at 
work. The question to what extent, will depend mainly 
upon the nature of the evidence for miracles and the 
length of time interposed between the evidence and the 
events. This will be the next subject to come before 
us. We may, however, anticipate so far as to say that 
whatever degree of verisimilitude belongs to the causes 
suggested in themselves, they do not appear to be 
adequate, either separately or in combination, to ac¬ 
count for the whole or any large part of the narratives 
as we have them. And there is the further considera¬ 
tion, on which more will also be said presently, that 
something of the nature of miracle, something which 
was understood as miracle, and that on no insignificant 
scale, must be assumed to account for the estimate cer¬ 
tainly formed by the whole first generation of Christians 
of the Person of Christ. 

§ 40 . (iii.) The Evidence for the Gospel Miracles in 
general. — Coming to the question as to the evidence for 
the Miracles recorded in the Gospels, there are three 
main observations to be made: (a) that the evidence 
for all these miracles, generally speaking, is strong; 


10 6 TEACHING AND MIRACLES 

(/?) that the evidence for all the different classes of miracles 
is equally strong; (y) that although for the best attested 
miracles in each class the evidence is equal, there is a 
difference between particular miracles in each class; some 
are better attested than others. 

(a) It is unnecessary to repeat what has been already 
said (p. 4, sup.) about the general character of the Gospel 
History. The critical student must constantly have in 
mind the question to what state of things the different 
phases of that history as it has come down to us cor¬ 
respond. Does it reflect conditions as they existed after 
a.d. 70 or before? And if before, how far does it re¬ 
flect the later half of that period, and how far the 
earlier? How far does it coincide with a section of 
Christian thought and Christian life ( e.g .) taken at the 
height of the activity of St. Paul; and how far does it 
certainly point to an earlier stage than this ? In other 
words, how much of the description contained in the Gos¬ 
pels belongs to the period of consequences, and how much 
to the period of causes? 

Every attempt to treat of the life of our Lord should 
contribute its quota to the answer to these questions. 
And it is becoming more and more possible to do this, 
not merely in a spirit of superficial apologetics, but 
with a deep sense of responsibility to the truth of his¬ 
tory. And the writer of this article strongly believes 
that the tendency of the researches of recent years has 
been to enhance and not to diminish the estimate of the 
historical value of the Gospels. 

(ft) This applies to the Gospel records as a whole, in 
which miracles are included. It is natural next to ask, 
What is the nature of the particular evidence for 


THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 10? 

Miracles? How is it distributed? Does the distribution 
correspond to the distinction which we have drawn between 
the easier and the more difficult Miracles? If it did, we 
might suppose that the former class had better claims to 
credence than the latter. 

But an examination of the documents shows that 
this is not the case. Without committing ourselves to 
all the niceties of the Synoptic problem, there are at 
any rate broad grounds for distinguishing between the 
matter that is found in all the three Synoptics, in the First 
and Third, and in one only of the Three. Whether 
the ultimate groundwork is written or oral, the three¬ 
fold matter represents that groundwork, and is there¬ 
fore, if not necessarily the oldest, at least the most 
broadly based and authoritative. There is reason to 
think that the double matter is also very ancient. It 
consists largely of discourse, but some few narratives 
seem to belong to it. The peculiar sections of the dif¬ 
ferent Gospels vary considerably in their character, and 
it is natural to suppose that they would have the least 
antecedent presumption in their favour. Some confirma¬ 
tory evidence would be needed for facts which rested upon 
their testimony alone. 

Now, if it had happened that the Nature-Miracles 
had been confined to sections of this last kind, while 
the Miracles of Healing — and especially the Healing of 
nervous diseases — had entered largely into the Double 
and Triple Synopsis; or — inasmuch as discourse more 
often bears the stamp of unmistakable originality than 
narrative — if the miracles of one class had appeared 
only in the form of narrative, while the allusions in dis¬ 
course were wholly to miracles of the other, then the 


io8 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


inference would have lain near at hand that there was a 
graduated scale in the evidence corresponding to a like 
graduated scale in the antecedent probability of the 
miracle. 

But this is not the case. Miracles of all the different 
kinds occur in all the documents or sources. The 
Triple Synopsis contains not only the healing of de¬ 
moniacs and paralytics, but the healing of the issue of 
blood (Mk S 25 !!), the raising of Jairus’ daughter (z^. 38 !!), 
the stilling of the storm ( ib . 4 37 ||), the feeding of the five 
thousand {ib. 6 s 5 1 |). This last miracle is found not only 
in all three Synoptists, but also in Jn 6 5ff- . And there 
is this further point about it, that if we regard the 
miracles generally as a gradual accretion of myth and 
not based upon fact, we should undoubtedly assume 
that the feeding of the four thousand (Mk 8 1 , Mt 15 32 ) 
was a mere duplicate of it. But it is probable that 
this story also belonged to the fundamental source, in 
spite of its omission by Luke. In that case both the 
feedings of a multitude would have had a place in the 
oldest of all our authorities, and the first growth in 
the tradition would have to be pushed back a step farther 
still. We should thus have a nature-miracle not only 
embodied in our oldest source, but at its first appear¬ 
ance in that source already pointing back some way 
behind it. 

(y) It thus appears that the evidence, externally 
considered, is equally good for all classes of miracles. 
It is not, as we might expect, that the evidence for the 
easier miracles is better than that for the more difficult, 
leaving us free to accept the one and reject the others. 
We cannot do this, because the best testimony we have 


THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 


109 


embraces alike those miracles which imply a greater 
deviation from the ordinary course of nature and those 
in which the deviation is less. 

It does not, however, follow that within the different 
classes of miracles the evidence for particular miracles 
is equal. When Prof. Goldwin Smith insists that all 
the miracles recorded in the Gospels stand or fall to¬ 
gether, he is going in the teeth, not so much of anything 
peculiar to the study of the Gospels, but of the historical 
method generally. And the examples which he gives 
are unfortunate. ‘We cannot pick and choose. The 
evidence upon which the miraculous darkness and the 
apparition of the dead rest is the same as that upon 
which all the other miracles rest, and must be accepted 
or rejected in all the cases alike’ (Guesses at the Riddle 
of Existence , p. 160). No critical student needs to be 
told that the evidence for the apparitions of the dead 
(Mt 2 7 52f< ) belongs just to that stratum which carries 
with it the least weight. The authority for the darkness 
is much higher, but its miraculous character need not 
be magnified. Any unusual darkening of the sky would 
naturally strike the imagination of the disciples ; and 
it might be not contrary to nature and yet also not 
accidental. 

§ 41 . (iv.) The Quality of the Evidence . — So far we 
have spoken of the external character of the evidence. 
It is speaking within the mark to say that a large part 
of the evidence for the Gospel miracles, including some 
of those that are most miraculous, is separated from 
the facts by an interval of not more than thirty years. 
We may be pretty sure that before that date, and even 


110 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


much before it, stories of miracles like those recorded 
in the Gospels circulated freely among Christians, and 
were a common subject of teaching by catechists and 
others. We now proceed to ask, What is the quality 
of the narratives in which these stories occur ? What 
features are there in the stories themselves which throw 
light upon their historical value ? 

(a) We are met at the outset by the Temptation. If 
there is anything certain in history, it is that the story 
of the Temptation has a real foundation in fact, for the 
simple reason that without such a foundation it would 
have occurred to no one to invent it. It suits exactly 
and wonderfully the character of Jesus as we can now 
see it, but not as it was seen at the time. Men were 
trying to apprehend that character ; they had a glimpse 
here and a glimpse there; but they cannot have had 
more than dim and vague surmises as to what it was 
as a whole. But whoever first told the story of the 
Temptation saw it as a whole. We have therefore 
already drawn the inference that it was first told by 
none other than Jesus Himself. And by that inference 
we stand. There is nothing in the Gospels that is more 
authentic. 

But the story of the Temptation presupposes the 
possession of supernatural powers. It all turns on the 
question how those powers are to be exercised. It not 
only implies the possession of power to work such 
miracles as were actually worked, but others even more 
remarkable from the point of view of crude interference 
with the order of nature. The story of the Temptation 
implies that Jesus could have worked such miracles 
if He had willed to do so; and the reason why 


THE MIRACLES OF JESUS III 

He did not work them was only because He did not 
will. 

The keynote which is struck by the Temptation is 
sustained all through the sequel of the history. We 
can see that the Life of Jesus was what it was by an 
act of deliberate denunciation. When He says, as the IT 
end draws near, ‘ Thinkest thou that I cannot beseech 
my Father, and he shall even now send me more than 
twelve legions of angels ? ’ (Mt 26 53 ), the lesson holds 
good, not for that moment alone, but for all that has 
preceded it. The Public Ministry of Jesus wears the 
aspect it does, not because of limitations imposed from 
without, but of limitations imposed from within. 

Here lies the paradox of the Miracles of Christ. He 
seems at once to do them, and so to guard against a 
possible misuse that it is as if He had not done them. 

The common idea of miracles was as a manifestation 
of Divine pow r er. Jesus gave the manifestation, and 
yet He seemed so to check it from producing its natural 
effect that it is as though it did not serve its purpose. 

It really serves His purpose, but not the purpose 
which the world both then and since has ascribed to 
Him. 

(/J) We have seen that the principles laid down at 
the Temptation governed the whole public life of Jesus. 

He steadily refused to work miracles for any purely 
self-regarding end. If the fact that He works miracles 
at all is a sympathetic adaptation to the beliefs and 
expectations of the time, those beliefs are schooled and 
criticized while they are adopted (Mt 12 39 || i6 1£ -, Jn 4 48 ), 
the element of mere display, the element of self-asser¬ 
tion, even of self-preservation, is eliminated from them. 


112 


TEACHING AND MIRACLES 


They are studiously restricted to the purposes of the 
mission. 

Now this carefully restricted character in the miracles 
of Jesus is unique in history. Among all the multitude 
of wonders with which the faith, sometimes super¬ 
stitious, but more often simply naive, of the later 
Church adorned the lives of the saints, there is nothing 
quite like it. We may say with confidence that if the 
miracles of Jesus had been no more than an invention, 
they would not have been what they are. We can see 
in the evangelists a certain dim half-conscious feeling 
of the self-imposed limitations in the use of the super¬ 
natural by Christ. But we may be very sure that they 
have this feeling, because the limitations were inherent 
in the facts, not because they formed part from the first 
of a picture which they were constructing a priori. 

(y) There are three kinds of restriction in the miracles 
of our Lord. The limitation in the subject-matter of 
the miracles is one; the limitation in the conditions 
under which they are wrought is another (Mt 13 58 II 
*5 24 26 )j an d the limitation in the manner in which they 
are set before the world is a third. In a number of 
cases, after a miracle has been performed, the recipient 
is strictly cautioned to maintain silence about it (Mk i 34 II 
demoniacs, i 44 || leper, 3 12 demoniacs, cf. Mt 12 16 , Mk 7 s6 
deaf and dumb, 8 26 blind). This hangs together with 
the manifest intention of Jesus to correct not only the 
current idea of miracles, but the current idea of the 
Messiah as one endowed with supernatural power. If 
He was so endowed, it was not that He might gather 
about Him crowds and establish a carnal kingdom such 
as the Jews expected. 


THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 


113 

This, too, is a very original feature. It is certainly 
not one that the popular imagination would create, 
because the motive to create it was wanting. It is 
not to be supposed that the popular imagination would 
first correct itself and then embody the correction in a 
fictitious narrative. Here again we are driven to the 
conclusion that the narrative truly reflects the facts. 

(8) In yet another way do the accounts of the miracles 
work in with the total picture of the Life of Christ. 
They have a didactic value, which makes them round 
off the cycle of the teaching. This fact perhaps leaves 
some opening for the possibility that here and there 
what was originally parable may in course of trans¬ 
mission have hardened into miracle. An example of 
such a possibility would be the withering of the Fig-tree 
(Mk xi 12 " 14 20 - 25 || compared with Lk 13 6 " 9 ). But, on the 
other hand, it is just as possible that parable and miracle 
may stand side by side as a double enforcement of the 
same lesson. The story of the Temptation is proof that 
Jesus would not hesitate to clothe His teaching in a 
form at once natural and impressive to that generation, 
though it is less so to ours. In this He only takes up a 
marked characteristic of the OT Prophets. 

§ 42. (v.) Historical Necessity of Miracles . — The truth 
is that the historian who tries to construct a reasoned 
picture of the Life of Christ finds that he cannot dispense 
with miracles. He is confronted with the fact that no 
sooner had the Life of Jesus ended in apparent failure 
and shame than the great body of Christians — not an 
individual here and there, but the mass of the Church — 
passed over at once to the fixed belief that He was God. 

8 


1 14 TEACHING AND MIRACLES 

By what conceivable process could the men of that day 
have arrived at such a conclusion, if there had been 
really nothing in His life to distinguish it from that of 
ordinary men ? We have seen that He did not work 
the kind of miracles which they expected. The miracles 
in themselves in any case came short of their expecta¬ 
tions. But this makes it all the more necessary that 
there must have been something about the Life, a 
broad and substantial element in it, which they could 
recognize as supernatural and divine — not that we can 
recognize, but which they could recognize with the 
ideas of the time. Eliminate miracles from the career 
of Jesus, and the belief of Christians, from the first 
moment that we have undoubted contemporary evidence 
of it (say a.d. 50 ), becomes an insoluble enigma. 

§ 43. (vi.) Natural Congruity of Miracles. — And now, 
if from the belief of the Early Church we turn to the 
belief of the Church in our day, there a different kind 
of congruity appears, but a congruity that is no less 
stringent. If we still believe that Christ was God, not 
merely on the testimony of the Early Church, but on 
the proof afforded by nineteen centuries of Christianity, 
there will be nothing to surprise us in the phenomena of 
miracles. ‘If the Incarnation was a fact, and Jesus 
Christ was what He claimed to be, His miracles, so far 
from being improbable, will appear the most natural 
thing in the world. . . . They are so essentially a part 
of the character depicted in the Gospels, that without 
them that character would entirely disappear. They 
flow naturally from a Person who, despite His obvious 
humanity, impresses us throughout as being at home in 


THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 115 

two worlds. . . . We cannot separate the wonderful life, or 
the wonderful teaching, from the wonderful works. They 
involve and interpenetrate and presuppose each other, 
and form in their insoluble combination one harmonious 
picture ’ (Illingworth, Divine bnmanence , pp. 88-90). 

If we seek to express the rationale or inner congruity 
of miracles in Biblical language, we shall find this 
abundantly done for us in the Gospel of St. John. 
Miracles arise from the intimate association of the 
Son with the Father in the ordering of the universe, 
especially in all that relates to the redemption of man. 
When challenged by the Jews for healing a sick man 
upon the Sabbath, Jesus replied, ‘ My Father worketh 
even until now (i.e. since, and in spite of the institution 
of the Sabbatical Rest), I am working also’ (Jn 5 17 ) ; 
the same law holds for the actions of the Son as for the 
conservation of the universe. And He goes on, * Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of him¬ 
self, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what 
things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like 
manner. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth 
him all things that himself doeth: and greater works 
than these will he show him, that ye may marvel ’ 
{ib. vv 19 - 20 ). Many other passages at once suggest 
themselves to the same effect (Jn 3 s5 8^ 14 10 ). The 
Son is ‘sent’ by the Father, and He is invested with 
full powers for the accomplishment of that mission; or 
rather with reference to it and for the purpose of it, He 
and the Father are one (Jn io 30 ). 

The sayings of this character are all from the Fourth 
Gospel. But there is a near approach to them in the 
well-known passage Mt n 27 || ('All things have been 


II6 TEACHING AND MIRACLES 

delivered unto me of my Father’); and this does but 
form a natural climax to others, which, without it, would 
seem to leave something wanting and incomplete. 

§ 44 . (vii.) The Unexplained Element in Miracles .— 
When all the above considerations are borne in mind, 
some may think that there is a residuum which is not 
wholly explained — not so much as to the fact of miracles, 
or as to their congruity with the Person of Jesus, but 
rather as to the method of particular miracles in the 
form in which they have come down to us. It is quite 
inevitable that there should be such a residuum, which 
is only another name for the irreducible interval which 
must, when all is done, separate the reflective science- 
trained intellect of the twentieth century from the 
naive chroniclers of the first. Jesus Himself would 
seem to have been not without a prescience that this 
would be the case. At any rate there is a permanent 
significance, unexhausted by the occasion which gave 
rise to it, in His reply to the disciples of the Baptist, 
while appealing to works which, however beneficent, 
would, He knew, fail to realize all the Baptist’s expecta¬ 
tions : ‘ Blessed is he that shall find no scandal — or 
stumbling-block — in me’ (Mt ii 6 ||). There was doubt¬ 
less something left in the mind of John which he could 
not perfectly piece together with the rest of such mental 
outfit as he had. And so we may be sure that it will be 
in every age, though age after age has only helped to 
strengthen the conviction that the modes of thought of the 
Zeitgeist may and do continually change, but that the worth 
for man of the Person of Jesus does not change but is 
eternal. 


THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 


II 7 


Literature. — Probably the best work in English at the present 
moment on the presuppositions of the Gospel Miracles would be 
Illingworth’s Divine Immanence (1898), a sequel to his Bampton 
Lectures (1894). It may be worth while to compare Gore, Bamp. 
Led . (1891). On the other hand, Mozley’s lectures on the same 
foundation for 1865 have reference rather to a phase of the con¬ 
troversy which is now past. There is, of course, much on the 
subject in the various treatises on Apologetics; and articles are 
constantly appearing in magazines, as well as shorter monographs, 
both British and Foreign. The present writer cannot say—or at 
least cannot remember — that he has gained as much from these 
several sources as in the case of the teaching of Jesus. He would 
like, however, to mention with gratitude, Grounds of Theistic 
and Christian Belief by Dr. G. P. Fisher of Yale (Scribner’s, 
New York, 1883; revised edit. 1903), a very clear and temperate 
statement of the evidence for the Gospel Miracles on older lines; 
the chap, on Miracles in Dr. A. B. Bruce, Chief end of Revelation 
(3rd ed. 1890) ; and three short lectures, entitled The Supernatural 
in Christianity (by Drs. Rainy, Orr, and Marcus Dods, in reply to 
Pfleiderer, Edinb. 1894). 

The most considerable attempt in English to construct Chris¬ 
tianity without Miracles is Dr. Edwin A. Abbott’s The Kernel and 
the Husk (1886), and The Spirit on the Waters (1897). With this 
may be compared Dr. Salmon’s Non-miraculous Christianity (and 
other Sermons'). 

There are well-known systematic works on the Gospel Miracles by 
the late Archbishop Trench and Dr. A. B. Bruce. 





CHAPTER V. 


THE LATER MINISTRY. 

C. Middle or Culminating Period of the 
Active Ministry. 

§ 45 . Scene. — Galilee, with an excursion across the 
northern border. 

Time. — Passover to shortly before Tabernacles a.d. 
28. 

Mt i^-iS 35 , Mk 6 14 -9 50 , Lk 9 7-50 , Jn 6. 

This is a period of culminations, in which the 
prophecy of Simeon begins to be conspicuously 
fulfilled: 1 Behold, this child is set for the falling 
and rising up of many in Israel, and for a sign 
which is spoken against ’ (Lk 2 s4 ). The main 
culminations are (i.) of the zeal of the populace, 
followed by their disappointment and falling away; 
(ii.) the still greater embitterment of the scribes 
and Pharisees; (iii.) the awakening at last of a 
more intelligent faith in the disciples, reaching its 
highest point in St. Peter’s confession; (iv.) the 
Divine testimony to Jesus in the Transfiguration; 
(v.) the consciousness of victory virtually won in 
119 


120 


THE LATER MINISTRY 


Jesus Himself (Mt ii 25 ' 30 , Lk 2o 17-24 ) ; (vi.) at 
the same time He sees clearly, and begins to 
announce the seeming but transient catastrophe, 
the final humiliation and exaltation, in which His 
work is to end. 

The time of this period is clearly marked by the 
occurrence of the Passover of the year a.d. 28 at its 
beginning, and the Feast of Tabernacles (in October of 
the same year) at the end. It is probable that within 
these six months all the salient events referred to below 
may be included. The place is, broadly speaking, 
Galilee, beginning with the shores of the lake (Jn 6) ; 
but in the course of the period there falls a wider circuit 
than any that had been hitherto taken. In this circuit 
Jesus touched on, and probably crossed, the borders of 
the heathen districts of Tyre and Sidon (Mk 7 s4 1 |) ; He 
then returned eastwards through the neighbourhood of 
Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8 27 ||) ; and He finally returned to 
Capernaum, not directly, but after taking a round to 
the east of the lake and through Decapolis (Mk 7 31 ). 
The motive was probably not so much on this occasion 
extended preaching as to avoid the ferment excited 
among the population of Central Galilee. Observe Mk 
7 24 and the strict injunctions of secrecy in Mk y 36 S 30 ! 
9 9 ||. If we may follow our authorities (Mk y s2ff - 8 lff - llff ) 
there was a certain amount of active work at the end of 
the circuit; but Mt ii 20 ®- appears to mark the practical 
close of the Galilaean ministry. 

The greater part of this circuit lay within the 
dominions, not of Herod Antipas, where Jesus had 
hitherto mainly worked, but of his brother Philip. 
Now we know that the hostility to Him was shared by 


MIDDLE PERIOD 


121 


the Pharisees with the partisans of Herod (Mk 3 6 and 
p. 61 above; cf. also Mk 8 15 ). We have also, but 
probably at a still later date, threats, which if not 
actually made by Herod Antipas were at least plausibly 
attributed to him (Lk 13 31 ). In any case, it is likely 
enough that intrigues were on foot between the two 
allied parties of the Pharisees and Herodians; and 
some writers, of whom Keim may be taken as an 
example, have attributed to these what they describe as 
a ‘ flight ’ on the part of Jesus. They may have had 
something to do with His retirement. 

This division of our Lord’s Life includes several 
narratives (the Feedings of the Five and Four Thousand, 
the Walking on the Water, the Transfiguration) which 
sound especially strange to modern ears. We must 
repeat the warning, that if a twentieth century observer 
had been present he would have given a different ac¬ 
count of the occurrences from that which has come 
down to us. But the mission of Jesus was to the first 
century and not to the twentieth. His miracles as 
well as His teaching were adapted to the mental habits 
of those to whom they were addressed. It is wasted 
ingenuity to try, by rationalizing the narratives, to 
translate them into a language more like our own. 
Essential features in them are sure to escape in the pro¬ 
cess. It should be enough to notice that the narratives 
in question all rest on the very best historical authority. 
They belong to the oldest stratum of the evangelical 
tradition. And more than this: if we suppose, as it is 
not unreasonable to suppose, that the Feedings of the 
Five and of the Four Thousand are different versions of 
the same event, this would throw us back some way 


22 


THE LATER MINISTRY 


behind even that oldest stratum; because we should 
have to allow an additional period of time for the two 
versions to arise out of their common original (see 
p. 108 sup). This would carry us back to a time when 
numbers must have been living by whom the truth of 
that which is reported might be controlled. In the case 
of the Feeding of the Five Thousand, we have the con¬ 
firmatory evidence of the Fourth Gospel, which for 
those who believe the author to have been an eye¬ 
witness must be little less than decisive. 

§ 46 . i. The Enthusiasm and Falling-away of the 
Populace. — It was just before the Passover of the year 

28 that the impression which Jesus had made on the 

people of Galilee seemed to reach its climax. This was 
the result of what is commonly known to us as the 
Feeding of the Five Thousand. The fact that the 
Passover was so near at hand accounts for a special 
gathering of pilgrims, or those preparing for the 
journey, from the Galilaean towns. In such a mixed 
multitude there would doubtless be many Zealots and 
enthusiastic expectants of the ‘ deliverance of Israel.’ 
The miracle convinces these that they have at last 

found the leader of whom they are in search. They are 
aware that hitherto He had shown no signs of en¬ 

couraging the active measures which they desired: 
and therefore they hasten to seize the person of Jesus in 
order to compel Him to put Himself at their head, with 
or against His will. He, however, retires from them; 
and their disappointment is complete when on the next 
day the more determined among them, after following 
Him at no little trouble into the synagogue at Caper- 


MIDDLE PERIOD 


123 


naum, find themselves put off with what they would 
regard as a mystical and unintelligible discourse. This 
is a turning-point in what had been for some time a 
gathering movement on the part of many who were 
willing to see in Jesus a Messiah such as they expected, 
but who were baffled and drew back when they found 
the ideal presented to them so different from their own. 
And the crisis once past, every possible precaution was 
taken to ensure that it should not recur (Mk 7 s4, 36 S 30 !! 
9 9 ||, as above). 


Are the two Feedings of Mk 6 30-46 || and Mk 8 1 ' 9 || to be regarded 
as two events or one ? Besides the general resemblance between 
the two narratives, a weighty argument in favour of the latter 
hypothesis is, that in the second narrative the disciples’ question 
appears to imply that the emergency was something new. They 
could hardly have put this question as they did if a similar event 
had happened only a few weeks before. The different numbers 
are just what would be found in two independent traditions. The 
decision will, however, depend here (as in the instances noted above) 
on the degree of strictness with which we interpret the narrative 
generally. 

The discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum, Jn 6 26_51 , works 
up to one of those profound truths which fixed themselves especi¬ 
ally in the memory of the author of the Fourth Gospel. It is not 
a direct reference to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, but it is 
a preparatory statement of the deep principle of which that Sacra¬ 
ment is the expression. We shall have more to say on this head 
below (see p. 165). 

§ 47 . ii. Widening Breach with the Pharisees. — More 
than one incident occurs in this period which points to 
the increasing tension of the relations between Jesus 
and the Pharisees (Mk 8 1L 15 ). But the decisive passage 
is Mk 7 113 ||, the severity of which anticipates the 
denunciations of the last Passover. In this Jesus cuts 


124 


THE LATER MINISTRY 


away root and branch of the Pharisaic traditions and 
exposes their essential immorality. From this time 
onwards the antagonism is open and declared. 

§ 48 . iii. The Climax of Faith among the Twelve; St. 
Peter's Confession. — We have seen how the enthusiasm 
of the multitudes reached its climax after the Feeding 
of the Five Thousand, but did not recover from the 
rebuff which it then received, and from that time more 
or less collapsed, until it flamed up for a moment 
at the triumphal entry. The Twelve were in a better 
position to enter into the mind of their Master, and it 
was but natural that they should be more steadfastly 
attached to His person. Hence their faith survived the 
shocks which it was continually receiving, and St. 
Peter gave the highest expression which it had yet 
received, when, in reply to a direct question, he ex¬ 
claimed, 1 Thou art the Christ [the Son of the Living 
God] * (Mt i 6 13 - 20 1 |). Jesus marked His sense of the 
significance of the confession by words of warm com¬ 
mendation. He attributes it, indeed, to a direct in¬ 
spiration from Heaven. The value of the confession 
stands out all the more clearly when it is compared 
with the doubts of the Baptist (see above, p. 56). We 
are not to suppose that St. Peter had by any means as 
yet a full conception of all that was implied in his own 
words. He still did not understand what manner of 
Messiah he was confessing ; but his merit was, that in 
spite of the rude shocks which his faith had been 
receiving, and in spite of all that was paradoxical and 
enigmatical in the teaching and actions of his Master, 
he saw through his perplexities the gleams of a nature 


MIDDLE PERIOD 125 

which transcended his experience, and he was willing 
to take upon trust what he could not comprehend. 

It would be out of place to attempt here to discuss the conflict¬ 
ing interpretations of the blessing pronounced upon St. Peter. 
We can only say that although it is not adequate to explain the 
blessing as pronounced upon the confession and not upon St. 
Peter himself, it is nevertheless distinctly pronounced upon St. 
Peter as confessing. It is in the fact that there is at last one who, 
in the face of all difficulties, recognizes from his heart that Jesus 
is what He is, that the first stone, as it were, of the Church is 
laid; other stones will be built upon and around it, and the edifice 
will rise day by day, but the beginning occurs but once, and the 
beginning of the Christian Church occurred then. It is not to 
detract from the merit of St. Peter — which so far as the build¬ 
ing up of the Church is concerned was as high as human merit 
could be — if we interpret the blessing upon him in the light of 
1 Co 3 11 . The Church has but one foundation, in the strict sense, 
Jesus Christ. It was precisely to this that St. Peter’s confession 
pointed. But that confession was the first of all like confessions ; 
and in that respect might well be described as the first block of stone 
built into the edifice. 

§ 49 . iv. The Culminating Point in the Missionary 
Labours of Jesus .— God seeth not as man seeth. To 
the average observer, even to one who was acquainted 
with St. Peter’s confession, it would seem to be the 
solitary point of light in the midst of disappointment 
and failure. A retrospect of the Galilsean ministry 
seemed to show little but hard-heartedness, ingratitude, 
and unbelief (Jn 12 37 - 40 ). Our Lord Himself can only 
denounce woe upon the cities which enjoyed most of 
His presence (Mt ii 20 - 24 !!). And yet about the same 
time two sayings are recorded which mark a deep 
inward consciousness of success. The ministry which 
might seem to be in vain was not really in vain, but 
potential and in promise; to the eye which saw into the 


126 


THE LATER MINISTRY 


future as well as into the present, and which looked 
into the inmost counsels of the Father, the crisis might 
even be regarded as past. One of these sayings is Lk 
io 18 . The success of the disciples in casting out 
demons draws from Jesus the remark that the power of 
the prince of darkness is broken. And about the same 
time, as if ingratitude and opposition counted for 
nothing, He pours out His thanks to the Father: ‘ I 
thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that 
thou didst hide these things from the wise and under¬ 
standing, and didst reveal them unto babes; yea, 

Father, for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight * (Mt 
n 25f - ||). The next verse in both Gospels contains the 
clearest expression in the Synoptics of that sense of 
oneness with the Father which is brought out so 
pointedly in John. And the verses which follow in 
Matthew are that wonderful invitation : ‘Come unto 
me,’ etc. He who understands this group of sayings 
has found his way to the heart of Christianity. 

§ 50 . v. The Transfiguration. — To the confession of 
the apostle and to the words of thanksgiving, which 
are also words of serene contentment and inward 

assurance, there was not wanting an outward Divine 

sanction. This was given in the scene which is known 

to us as the Transfiguration (Mk 9 s-8 1 |). The narrative 
of the Transfiguration reminds us, in more ways than 
one, of those of the Baptism and Temptation. Once 
again the apostles hear words which seem to come 
from Heaven confirming the mission of their Master. 
At the same time they see a vision which brings out 
the significance of that mission in a way for which as 


MIDDLE PERIOD 


127 


yet they can hardly have been prepared. The appear¬ 
ance of Moses and Elijah by the side of, and as it were 
ministering to, Jesus, symbolized the Law and the 
Prophets as leading up to and receiving their fulfilment 
in the Gospel. 

It is impossible not to see the appropriateness of this Divine 
testimony to the mission of Jesus occurring just where it does. 
That unique relationship of the Son to the Father, which forms 
the constant background of the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, 
and is not less the background — real, if not so apparent — of the 
Synoptics, could not but assert itself from time to time. And what 
time could be fitter for a clear pronouncement of it than this, when 
outward circumstances were for the most part so discouraging, and 
when the prospect was becoming every day nearer and more certain 
of the fatal and terrible end ! If the Son must needs go down into 
the valley of the shadow of death, the Father’s face will shine 
upon Him for a moment before He enters it with a brightness which 
will not be obscured. 

As bearing upon the essentially historical character of the narra¬ 
tive, however difficult and even impossible it may be for us to recon¬ 
struct its details in such a way that we could be said to understand 
them, note (1) the significance of the appearance of Moses and 
Elijah at a time when that significance can have been but very imper¬ 
fectly apprehended by the disciples, and when there was absolutely 
nothing to suggest such an idea to them; and (2) the Transfiguration 
comes within the cycle of events in regard to which a strict silence 
was to be observed. This striking and peculiar stamp of genuineness 
was not wanting to it. We may note also (3) the random speech of 
St. Peter (Mk 9 5 ||) as a little graphic and authentic touch which had 
not been forgotten. 

It might be supposed that the enlargements in Lk 9 31f - were 
merely editorial, but, like not a few added details in this Gospel, 
they become more impressive upon reflexion. The other evan¬ 
gelists throw no light upon the subject of the converse between the 
glorified figures; Luke alone says that they ‘spake of his decease 
which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.’ This was, we 
may be sure, the subject which deeply occupied the mind of Jesus 
at this time; and it is hardly less certain that the particular 
aspect of it which would be most present to Him would be its 


128 


THE LATER MINISTRY 


relation to the prophetic Scriptures of OT (and the Law also had 
its prophetic side). We might expect an appearance of Isaiah 
rather than Elijah; but Elijah was the typical prophet, and the 
Jews expected his appearing (cf. Wetstein on Mt 17 3 ). The other 
peculiar detail in Luke, that ‘ Peter and they that were with him 
were heavy with sleep,’ may well seem confirmatory of the view 
(<?.£•.) of Weiss and Beyschlag, that the scene was presented to the 
three apostles in divinely caused vision. 

§ 51 . vi. The Prophecies of Death and Resurrection. 

— The period we are describing is a kind of water-shed, 
which marks not only the summit of the ascent but the 
beginning of the descent. We have seen how this was 
the case with the enthusiasm of the multitude: it was 
also the case with Christ Himself. The confession of 
St. Peter was immediately followed, and the Trans¬ 
figuration both preceded and followed, by distinct pro¬ 
phecies of the fatal end which was to close His ministry 

— an end fatal in the eyes of men, but soon to be can¬ 
celled by His resurrection. As these prophecies will meet 
us again in the next period, to which they give its 
dominant character, we will reserve the discussion of them 
till then. 


D. Close of the Active Period : the 
Messianic Crisis in View. 

§ 52 . Scene . — Judaea (Jn 7 10ff - n 54 ) and Peraea (Mk 
1 o 1 1 |, Jn io 40 ). 

Time. — Tabernacles a.d. 28 to Passover a.d. 29. 

Mt i9 1 -20 34 Mk 10, Lk 9 51 -i9 28 (for the most part 
not in chronological order), Jn 7 1 -n 57 . 

In this period we may note more particularly 
(i.) the peculiar section of St. Luke’s Gospel 
which might on a superficial view seem to be 


CLOSE OF THE ACTIVE PERIOD 


129 


placed in this period; (ii.) that portion of the 
Johannean narrative which really belongs to it; 
(iii.) the general character of our Lord’s Teaching 
at this time ; (iv.) in particular, the prophecies of 
Death and Resurrection; and (v.) the hints which 
are given of a special significance attaching to 
these events. 

The time of this period extends from the Feast of 
Tabernacles in a.d. 28 to the Passover of a.d. 29. 
There is more difficulty in mapping out the distribution 
of its parts topographically. We have some clear 
landmarks if we follow the guidance of the Fourth 
Gospel. The events of the section Jn ^-io 21 partly 
belong to the Feast of Tabernacles and in part follow 
at no great interval after it. We have again in Jn io 22 
a clear indication of time and place, the Feast of 
Dedication at Jerusalem. This would be towards the 
end of December. After that, Jesus withdrew beyond 
Jordan to the place where * John was at the first baptiz¬ 
ing’ (Jn io 40 ). Here He made a lengthened stay, and 
it was from hence that He paid His visit to Bethany 
for the raising of Lazarus. Then He again retired to 
a city called Ephraim on the edge of the wilderness 
north-east of Jerusalem, where He remained until the 
Jews began to gather together to attend the Passover 
(Jn ii 55 ). We have thus a fairly connected narrative 
extending from the beginning of the year to the Pass- 
over of a.d. 29, the scene of which is in part Judaea and 
in part Peraea. We have also a fixed point covering, 
perhaps, about a fortnight in the latter half of October 
and localized at Jerusalem. But what of the seven or 
eight weeks which separate this from the Feast of 
9 


130 


THE LATER MINISTRY 


Dedication ? Is it probable that Jesus returned to 
Galilee and continued His ministry there ? It does not 
seem so. The solemn and deliberate leave-taking from 
Galilee is not likely to have been so broken. The prin¬ 
cipal objection to this view would be that the secret 
and unexpected visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of 
Tabernacles does not seem consistent with the solemnity 
of this leave-taking. We may, however, suppose that 
the Galilsean ministry was practically complete before 
this date, and that strong expressions like those of Lk 
9 51 , if they are to be taken as they stand, refer to one 
of the later journeys. 

§ 53 . i. The so-called Percean Ministry. — There is a 
long section of St. Luke’s Gospel, Lk ^-iS 34 , which 
has been often treated as a single whole and as contain¬ 
ing the record of a special ministry, identified with the 
last journey towards Jerusalem, and having for its 

scene the lands beyond the Jordan. This is based 
upon the fact that the beginning of the section coincides 

with Mk io 1 , Mt 19 1 , and that the end of it brings us 

to the approach to Jericho (Lk 18 35 ). It is true that 
some part of the time preceding the last Passover was 
spent in Persea. We know this on the joint testimony 
of the other Synoptists and St. John (Mk io 1 , Mt 19 1 , 
Jn io 40 ). But to suppose that the whole section must 
be localized there is to misunderstand the structure 
and character of St. Luke’s Gospel. It is far more 

probable that he has massed together a quantity of 
material derived from some special source to which 
he had access, and which could not be easily fitted 
into the framework supplied to him by St. Mark. 


CLOSE OF THE ACTIVE PERIOD 


131 

When we come to examine these materials in detail, it would 
seem probable that they belong to very different periods in our 
Lord’s ministry. Some incidents, for instance, appear to assume 
those easier relations to the Pharisees which we have seen to be 
characteristic of the earlier period (Lk u 37 [but not w. 42-54 ] I4 lff ). 
It would be natural also to refer to this or the middle period the 
three parables of ch. 15 (Weiss, Leben Jesu , i. 507). On the other 
hand, some of the incidents are practically dated by their co¬ 
incidence with the other Gospels: while others, like the severer 
denunciations of the Pharisees and eschatological sections such as 
Lk 1322-30 i y20_j 3^ are referred to the later period by their subject- 
matter. It would be wrong to lay too much stress on mere 
symmetry; but when a natural sequence suggests itself, it may 
be accepted as having such probability as can be attained. The 
document which St. Luke is using in this part has preserved for us 
discourses of the utmost value, and it is largely to them that the 
Gospel owes its marked individuality. 

§ 54 . ii. The Johannean Narrative of this Period .— 
The historical value of the Fourth Gospel comes out 
strongly in this period. Rarely has any situation been 
described with the extraordinary vividness and truth to 
nature of ch. 7 (see esp. vv .n-i 5 .25-27.31.32.40-52^ Not 
less graphic are the details of ch. 9; and there is 
marked precision in the statements of Jn io 22f 40f - ii 54 " 57 . 
We note a special intimacy with what passes in the 
inner counsels of the Sanhedrin (Jn f 7 - 52 ii 47 ' 53 ). This 
intimate knowledge might have been derived through 
Nicodemus or through the connexion hinted at in Jn 
18 15 .* But, apart from the peculiar verisimilitude of 
these details, some such activity as that described in 
these chapters is required to explain the great cata¬ 
strophe which followed. It is impossible that Jesus 

* The theory of Delff has already been mentioned (p. 53 sup .); 
but it turns too much upon a single set of data, and leads to an arbi¬ 
trary dissection of the Gospel. 


132 


THE LATER MINISTRY 


should have been so much a stranger to Judaea and 
Jerusalem as the Synoptic narrative would at first sight 
seem to make Him. For the steps which lead up to 
the end we must go to St. John. 

§ 55 . iii. The general Character of the Teaching of 
this Pei'iod. — There are no doubt portions of the teach¬ 
ing of this period preserved in the Synoptics. But 
except those contained in Mk io 1_45 || they are difficult 
to identify with certainty. For the greater part of our 
knowledge of it we are indebted to St. John, and we 
may observe that the teaching now begins to take a 
new character. Hitherto it has been mainly concerned 
with the nature of the Kingdom; henceforward greater 
stress is laid on the person of the King. We have 
already noted the remarkable verse Mt ii 27 || ‘All 
things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and 
no one knoweth the Son save the Father; neither doth 
any know the Father save the Son, and he to whom¬ 
soever the Son willeth to reveal him.’ This verse may 
be said to represent the text which the discourses in St. 
John set in various lights. We have now the self¬ 
revelation of the Son as the central life-giving and 

light-giving force of humanity. As He is the living 
Bread (Jn 6), so is He the living Water (Jn 7 37f ) ; He 
is the Light of the world (Jn 8 12 q 5 ) ; He is the Good 
Shepherd (Jn io 11 ), the Resurrection and the Life (Jn 

ii 25 ). If we suppose that these discourses were really 
held, we shall understand better than we could do 
otherwise the state of Christian thought which meets 

us when we open the first surviving Epistles of St. 

Paul. 


CLOSE OF THE ACTIVE PERIOD 133 

§ 56 . iv. The Prophecies of Death and Resurrection. — 
From the time of St. Peter’s confession Jesus began in 
set terms to foretell that His mission would end in His 
death, soon, however, to be followed by His resurrec¬ 
tion (Mk 8 31 ||). At the moment of His highest triumph, 
marked by the Transfiguration, the same solemn pre¬ 
diction is repeated (Mk 9 31 ), and again yet a third time 
towards the end of the period with which we are now 
dealing (Mk io 32 " 34 ||). 

(a) Even an ordinary observer might have seen that 
the signs of the times were ominous. St. Peter’s con¬ 
fession showed no more than one adherent whose fervid 
faith might be supposed capable of resisting a pressure 
of life or death. Herod Antipas and his faction were 
hostile. The Pharisees were yet more hostile, and their 
bitterness was growing every day. Within the period 
before us two deliberate attempts were made on the life 
of Jesus (Jn 8 59 io 39 ). And with the certainty that 
the course on which He was bent would include nothing 
to conciliate these antagonisms, it was clear where they 
would end. 

( b ) But the foresight of Jesus took a wider range 
than this. He had laid it down as a principle that it 
was the fate of prophets to be persecuted (Mt 5 12 23 s4 - 37 ). 
In particular, He had before Him the example of the 
Baptist, whose fate He associated with His own 
(Mk 9 12f - ||). 

(c) But there was a deeper necessity even than this. 
At the Betrayal, to him who drew sword in His defence 
Jesus replied calmly, ‘ How then should the Scriptures 
be fulfilled, that thus it must be ? ’ And this is His 
consistent language (comp. Lk 24 25f - 44 46 etc.). The 


134 


THE LATER MINISTRY 


mind of Jesus was steeped in the ancient prophecies. 
He had Himself, as we have seen, deliberately fused 
the conception of the conquering Messiah with that of 
the Suffering Servant of Jehovah, and He as deliberately 
went the way to fulfil these prophecies in His own 
person. There was nothing accidental about His 
Death. He ‘ set His face steadfastly * on the road 
which led to it. 

( d) When we look into its lessons we are carried 
even behind the fulfilment of prophecy. We shall have 
to speak presently of the extraordinary novelty of the 
turn which Christ gave to His mission. Others had 
conquered by the exercise of force; He was the first to 
set Himself to conquer by weakness, patience, non- 
resistance. And the natural and inevitable consumma¬ 
tion of this new method of conquest was Death. 

(<?) In all this He was carrying out, and knew that He 
was carrying out, the Will of the Father. It was con¬ 
ceivable that that Will might have yet ulterior objects 
even beyond those, deep enough as we might think, 
which we have been considering. That Jesus ascribed 
to His Death such an ulterior object we are led to 
believe by the way in which He speaks of it. The two 
places in which He does so much must next engage our 
attention. 

§ 57 . v. Significance of the Death of Jesus. — The first 
of the passages to which allusion has just been made is 
Mk io 45 || ‘For verily the Son of Man came not to be 
ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a 
ransom for many.’ We observe here that Jesus brings 
His Death under the category of service, and regards it 


CLOSE OF THE ACTIVE PERIOD 135 

as the climax of a life of service. This is one way of 
stating the great paradox to which we have just alluded. 
The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over their 
subjects ; but such was not to be the ambition of the 
disciples of Christ; rather the very opposite; and it was 
Christ Himself who set them the example. At the end 
of the avenue stood a cross, and the Saviour of men 
walked up to it as if it had been a crown. It is a ques¬ 
tion of pressing interest how much farther we may go 
than this: is the \vrpov avrl noWw to be interpreted 
by the d7roA.uTpa>cris and IXaarypLov of Ro 3 24f> , and by 
the language of other similar passages ? By itself we 
could not say that it compelled such an interpretation; 
but there is nothing forced in supposing that the early 
Church knew and followed the mind of its Founder. 
In that case we should have reason to think that Jesus 
Himself had hinted at the sacrificial character of His 
Death, and that He too regarded it as propitiatory. 

If this passage suggests a sacrificial aspect of one 
kind, the other is more explicit in bringing out sacri¬ 
ficial associations of another. All the extant accounts 
of the institution of the Eucharist connect the Blood 
shed upon the Cross with the founding of a 1 [new] 
Covenant.’ This is certainly an allusion to the in¬ 
auguration of the first Covenant with sacrifice (cf. Ex 
2 4 4 - 8 , He 9 18-23 ), and the death of Christ is clearly 
regarded as the Sacrifice inaugurating the second (see 
below, p. 166). 

In other words, the momentous question came before 
the mind of Jesus whether the New Dispensation which 
He was founding was or was not like the Old in includ¬ 
ing the idea of Sacrifice. He deliberately answered that 


THE LATER MINISTRY 


136 

it was. And He deliberately foresaw, and as deliber¬ 
ately accepted the consequence, that the Sacrifice of 
this New Dispensation could be none other than the 
Sacrifice of Himself. 

That which gives this particular Death a value which 
no other death could have had is (a) the fact that it is 
the Death of the Messiah, of One whose function it is 
to be the Saviour of His people, and whose Death like 
His Life must in some way enter into the purpose of 
the whole scheme of salvation; and (/?) the further fact 
that although the Death is a necessity in the sense that 
it was required for the full development of God’s 
gracious purpose, it was nevertheless a purely volun¬ 
tary act on the part of the Son, an expression of that 
truly filial spirit in which He made the whole of the 
Father’s purpose His own. ‘ The good Shepherd 
layeth down his life for the sheep. . . . Therefore doth 
the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I 
may take it again. No one taketh it away from me, 
but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it 
down, and I have power to take it again. This com¬ 
mandment received I from my Father’ (Jn io 1117f ). It 
follows (y) that however much it may be right to con¬ 
ceive of the Death of Christ as a Sacrifice, and a 
sacrifice which has for its object the ‘ remission of sins ’ 
(Mt 26 s8 ), we must not in connexion with it set the 
justice of God against His mercy, or think of Him 
as really turning away His face from the Son of His 
love. 

Literature. — The subject of these last two sections not only 
comes into the field of New Testament Theology in general and 
treatises (like Wendt’s and others named above) on the Teaching 


CLOSE OF THE ACTIVE PERIOD 


137 


of Christ, but it necessarily occupies a prominent place in discussions 
of the Doctrine of the Atonement. Among these may be mentioned 
especially Ritschl’s Kechtfertigung u. Versohnung, vol. ii. of which 
goes elaborately into the exegesis of the leading passages (ed. 2, 1882), 
and a recent treatise by Kahler, Zur Lehre von der Versohnung 
(Leipzig, 1898), which gives prominence to the relation of the 
doctrine to the Life of Christ. A lengthy monograph by Schwartz- 
kopff deals directly with our Lord’s predictions of His Passion 
(Die Weissagungen Jesu Christi von seinem Tode , u.s.w., Gottingen, 
1895; Eng. tr., T. & T. Clark); and ‘Christ’s Attitude to His 
Death’ is the title of some striking articles by Dr. A. M. Fairbairn 
in Expos . 1896, ii., and 1897, u 








CHAPTER VI. 

THE MESSIANIC CRISIS. 

E. The Messianic Crisis : the Triumphal Entry, 
the Last Teaching, Passion, Death, Resurrec¬ 
tion, Ascension. 

§ 58 . Scene .— Mainly in Jerusalem. 

Time. — Six days before Passover to ten days before 
Pentecost a.d. 29. 

Mt 2i 1 -28 20 , Mk iP-ifi 8 [vv. 9 " 20 an early addi¬ 
tion], Lk i9 29 -24 52 , Jn i2 1 -2i 23 . 

This series of momentous events has naturally 
furnished much matter for discussion and contro¬ 
versy, some of it very recent, (i.) Our first duty 
will be to sketch rapidly the course of the events 
with special reference to the motives of the human 
actors in them, (ii.) We must consider the debated 
points in the chronology of the last week, (iii.) 
We shall have to discuss the eschatological teach¬ 
ing which the Synoptists place in this period, 
(iv.) A number of points, critical and doctrinal, 
will meet us in connexion with the Last Supper, 
(v.) We shall have in like manner to consider both 
the attestation and the significance of the crown- 

139 


140 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


ing event of all, the Resurrection. This will 
include some discussion of the Appearances which 
followed. Lastly (vi.), as our subject is the Life 
of Christ and not the Gospels, we must, even 
though in so doing we cross the threshold of St. 
Luke’s * second treatise,’ follow the steps of the 
Master to His Ascension. 

§ 59 . i. The Action and the Actors. — Our four Gospels, 
taken together, in part convey and in part suggest a 
view at once clear and probable of the course of events 
w T hich led to the Crucifixion, and of the motives which 
impelled the several actors in them. We have seen 
that the Fourth Gospel is needed to explain the 
heightened enmity which had so tragic an issue. A 
residence in Jerusalem and Bethany of four days would 
not be enough to account for the overtures to Judas. 
The events of the Feast of Tabernacles, the Feast of 
Dedication, and the Raising of Lazarus, with the 
knowledge that Jesus had been teaching and making 
disciples at no great distance from Jerusalem, supply 
what is wanted. And in the case of the Last Week the 
touches which the Fourth Gospel adds to its prede¬ 
cessors supplement them effectively. 

(a) The Populace. — In the Triumphal Entry we seem 
to see a gleam once more of the enthusiasm which had 
followed the Feeding of the Five Thousand. It was 
probably quite as superficial. We may imagine the 
crowd made up in part of those who had been impressed 
by recent teaching beyond the Jordan or in Jerusalem 
itself, or by the news of the still more striking miracle 
wrought upon Lazarus: besides these, there would 


THE LAST EVENTS 


141 

doubtless be a contingent of pilgrims from more distant 
Galilee, the remnant of the crowds who had at one time 
or another followed Jesus there. But it would be too 
much to expect that all, or even many of these, had 
acquired an intelligent insight into the character of Him 
whom they were cheering. They were still in the 
twilight of their old Jewish expectations. They sup¬ 
posed that the moment had at last come when the 
hopes which they cherished would be realized, and 
when before the crowds assembled for the Passover 
Jesus would at last put Himself forward as the Leader 
for whom they were waiting. Nothing, however, came 
of this seeming appeal to their enthusiasm. A few 
discourses in the temple, partly levelled against the 
religious authorities they were most accustomed to 
reverence, but containing not a word of incitement 
against the Romans, and that was all. What wonder 
if their enthusiasm died away, and if in some of the 
fiercer among them it changed to bitter and angry 
disappointment! Doubtless some of these Zealots 
mingled with those who cried ‘ Crucify him, crucify 
him ’; it was natural that they should prefer one of 
their own trade, like Barabbas; but the crowds in 
Jerusalem at Passover time were so great that many of 
these fanatics may have had no personal acquaintance 
with Jesus at all. The choice between Jesus and 
Barabbas would seem to them a choice between a mock 
leader, a dreamer of dreams, who offered them nothing 
but words, and a true son of the people who had shown 
himself ready to grip the sword in the good cause. 

( b ) The Traitor. — It is possible that Judas Iscariot 
may have shared something of these feelings. In the 


142 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


lists of the apostles he is usually named next to a 
Zealot. The long course of training which he had 
undergone may have failed to purge his mind of the 
carnal expectations of his countrymen. It may have 
been a sudden access of disappointment, greater than 
ever before, because the hopes by which it had been 
preceded had been greater, which impelled him to seek 
his interview with the members of the Sanhedrin. It 
has even been suggested that he did what he did in 
order to compel his Master to declare Himself, and 
with the belief that He would at last exert for the 
deliverance of the nation the supernatural powers with 
which He was endowed. For this we have no sufficient 
warrant; and we are told expressly (Jn 12 6 RV text and 
most Comms.) that Judas was guilty of petty pilfering 
from the common fund, and therefore may infer that he 
was accessible to the temptations of avarice. Still, few 
men act from motives that they cannot at least make 
plausible to themselves: so that a mixture of obstinate 
and misguided patriotism is more probable than pure 
malignity. If Judas had not been at least capable of 
better things, it is not likely that he would have been 
chosen to be one of the Twelve. 

(c) The Pharisees. — By this time between Jesus and 
the Pharisees there is open war. Insidious questions 
are still put to Him, but only in order to ‘ ensnare him 
in his talk,’ (Mt 2 2 15 ||). And on His side Jesus replied 
to their treachery by the sternest denunciations. It 
need not be supposed that all * scribes and Pharisees ’ 
were equally the object of these. We know that Nico- 
demus and Joseph of Arimathaea were members of the 
Sanhedrin; we do not know that they belonged to the 


THE LAST EVENTS 


M3 


party of the Pharisees, but we cannot doubt that there 
were some Pharisees like-minded with them; just as we 
learn from the Acts that after the Resurrection a number 
of the ‘priests’ (Ac 6 7 ) and at least some Pharisees (ib. 
15 s ) became Christians. 

(< d ) The Sadducees . — With the last week of our Lord’s 
life, or rather, if we may trust St. John, as far back as 
the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7 45 ), a new party comes 
into prominence. The Sanhedrin begins to take official 
action against Jesus; and, although the Pharisees had 
some footing in that body, its policy was more deter¬ 
mined by the Sadducees, to whom belonged most of the 
1 chief priests,’ and in particular Caiaphas, the acting 
high priest, and his yet more influential father-in-law 
and predecessor Annas. As against Jesus the two 
parties of Pharisees and Sadducees acted together, but 
their motives were different. The Pharisees were 
jealous for their authority and traditions, which were 
openly assailed. The Sadducees themselves rejected 
these traditions, — they were selfish politicians, who 
played their own game. Their motto was quieta non 
movere. They dreaded any kind of disturbance which 
might give the Romans an excuse to take the power 
out of their hands (cf. Jn. ii 48 ). It is curious to note 
how from this time onwards the bitterest opposition 
comes from the Sadducees, while leading Pharisees are 
neutral or even favourable (Ac 4 34-39 23 s ). 

( e) Pilate. — The position of things is this. The Jews 
(i.e. primarily the Sanhedrin) were bent upon bringing 
about the death of Jesus. Now they themselves had not 
the power of life and death (Jn 18 31 ). According to the 
Talmud, they lost it forty years before the destruction 


144 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


of Jerusalem, which would be about this very time. It 
is probable, however, that they did not long continue 
to possess it after the annexation of Judaea by the 
Romans. This being the case, they could only act 
through the instrumentality of the Roman governor. 
This necessitated the putting forward of different 
reasons from those that really weighed with them¬ 
selves. Rather we should say that there were really 
three sets of reasons: (i.) The real motive of the 

Sanhedrin was jealousy of its own authority, — on the 
part of the Sadducees fear of disturbance, on the part 
of the Pharisees resentment of the attacks upon them¬ 
selves and their traditions, and with some of the most 
patriotic among them perhaps disgust at a Messiah 
who was not a Messiah in any sense which they could 
comprehend. (ii.) The ostensible reason, which with 
some may have been sincere enough, was the charge of 
blasphemy against God. This charge they tried to 
bring home, but for a time could not (Mk i4 59 ||), until 
at last they caught at the confession of Jesus Himself. 
On the strength of this He was condemned (Mk I4 62 " 64 ). 
(iii.) This charge, however, was not one which they 
could bring before the governor, and therefore they 
changed their ground. St. Luke, who in all these 
scenes draws upon special and good information, states 
the accusation with more precision than the other 
Synoptists. ‘We found this man perverting our 
nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and 
saying that he himself is Christ a king ’ (or ‘ an anointed 
king/ RVm; Lk 2 3 2 ). 

With this charge it is that the leaders of the San¬ 
hedrin come before Pilate. Pilate has the rough 


THE LAST EVENTS 


145 


Roman sense of justice, and he feels that the charge 
is not proved. He sees no evidence that Jesus is really 
a formidable conspirator, or even a conspirator at all 
against the State. He therefore desires to release 
Him; but the Jews insist, the leaders being backed 
by the clamour of the crowd. The Sanhedrists know 
the weak point in Pilate’s armour, and they fasten upon 
it: ‘ If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar’s 
friend: every one that maketh himself a king speaketh 
against Caesar’ (Jn 19 12 , a most lifelike touch). For 
themselves they protest their loyalty. * We have no 
king but Caesar’ (Jn 19 15 ). For many of the Sanhedrin, 
Pharisees as well as Sadducees, this would be true, 
and those for whom it was not would discreetly hold 
their peace. To this pressure Pilate in the end gives 
way, washing his hands of the responsibility. He 
might have taken a nobler course, but he felt insecure 
of his position; he knew that the Jews had matter of 
just complaint against him; and sooner than face their 
malice, with the inconveniences which it might cause, 
he let them have their will. 

Literature. — With this section may be compared two works 
of imagination: Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, Philochristus , London, 
1878; and As Others Saw Him, London, 1895 (written from a 
Jewish point of view, but sympathetic and instructive). Also 
Chwolson, Das letzte Passamakl Christi, etc., St. Petersburg, 
1892, Anhang: ‘Das Verhaltniss d. Pharisaer, Sadducaer u. der 
Juden iiberbaupt zu Jesus Christus’ (minimizing the opposition 
of the Pharisees, and laying the blame upon the Sadducees. The 
writer was a distinguished Orientalist, Christian, but of Jewish 
birth). 

§ 60 . ii. The Ch?'onology of the Last Week. — A number 
of chronological difficulties meet us in the narrative of 

10 


146 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


this Last Week. (1) The pruna facie view would 
certainly be that the Anointing at Bethany was placed 
by Mark two days (Mk 14 1 ) and by John six days (Jn 
i2 l ) before the Passover. (2) The common opinion is 
that the Crucifixion took place on a Friday, and the 
Last Supper on the evening of Thursday; but it has 
also been argued that the two events took place on 
Thursday and Wednesday. (3) There is a much larger 
division of opinion as to the date of the Crucifixion in 
the Jewish calendar, and the relation of the Last Supper 
to the Paschal Meal. The Synoptists seem to identify 
the two, whereas St. John expressly places the Last 
Supper before the Passover, and would make the 
Crucifixion fall on Nisan 14. (4) The authorities also 

appear to differ as to the time of day occupied by 
the Crucifixion. According to Mk 15 25 the time of the 
Crucifixion itself was the * third hour’ ( = 9 a.m.); 
according to Jn 19 14 the trial was not quite over by 
the ‘ sixth hour’ (= noon), and therefore the Crucifixion 
was still later. 

Of these discrepancies No. 2 need not detain us. 
The view that the Crucifixion took place upon a 
Thursday is almost peculiar to Dr. Westcott ( Introd . 

to the Study of the Gospels , p. 322, ed. 3). It turns 

upon a pressing of the phrase ‘ three days and three 

nights ’ in Mt 12 40 , along with the probability of con¬ 

fusion between ‘preparation for the Passover ’ and the 
more ordinary use of the word in the sense of ‘ prepara¬ 
tion for the Sabbath ’ (i.e. Friday). The phrasing of 
Mt 27 s2 is somewhat peculiar, but not really less so on 
this way of reckoning than the other, because the day 
described as the ‘morrow after the Preparation’ would 


THE LAST EVENTS 


147 


be itself the weekly 7 rapacrK€vij. And Mt 12 40 is due 
only to the evangelist, and is not supported by the 
other authorities. [On the length of the interval 

between the Crucifixion and the Resurrection see esp. 
art. Chronology of NT in Hastings’ DB i. 4io b (with 
Field, Ot. Norv. iii. p. 7, there referred to), and Wright, 
NT Problems , p. 159 ff.] 

No. 1 is commonly removed by treating the note of 
time in Mk 14 1 1 | as referring to the events of vv. L 2,1011 

and not to the intervening narrative of vv. 3 " 9 . In 

support of this, Meyer-Weiss (ed. 8, ad loci) points 
to analogous cases of intrusive matter in Mk 3 22 " 30 

4IO' 25 6 14 " 29 7 25 ' 30 . On the other hand, M‘Clellan 

( Gospels , p. 472 f.) restricts the application of Jn 12 1 
to the arrival at Bethany, which, according to him, 
was on the afternoon of Friday, Nisan 8. The Anoint¬ 
ing he would place on the evening of Tuesday, Nisan 
12. Either view is possible, and neither can be verified. 
If we think that the fourth evangelist deliberately 

corrects his predecessors, we shall probably give the 
preference to him. On such a point Mark is not a 

first-hand authority, and the connexion between his 
placing of the Betrayal and of the Anointing may well 
be loose. 

As to (4) the difference in regard to the hour of the 
Crucifixion, attempts have been made with some per¬ 
sistence to prove that St. John used a different mode 
of reckoning time from that in common use. The 

writer of this was at one time inclined to look with 
favour on these attempts. If the premiss could be 
proved, the data would work out satisfactorily. But, 
in view of the articles by Mr. J. A. Cross in Class. 


148 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


Rev. 1891, p. 245 ff., and by Prof. Ramsay in Expositor, 
1893, i. 216 ff., it must definitely be said that the major 
premiss cannot be proved, and that the attempt to 
reconcile the two statements on this basis breaks down 
(cf. also Wright, Problems , p. 149 ff.). 

The ancient solution of the difficulty was to suppose a corruption 
(F for T, or vice versA ) of the text, more often in John than in 
Mark; and rightly, because in Mark there are three several notes 
of time (Mk 15 1 !! 26, 33 ||) which hang together. So Eus. ad Mari- 
num, with a group of MSS scholia (vid . Tisch. on Jn 19 14 ), etc. 
This solution is accepted by Mr. Wright (op. cit. p. 156 ff.), and it 
may conceivably hold good. 

Prof. Ramsay lays stress rather on the rough and approximate 
way in which the ancients used the reckoning by hours. It must 
be remembered that an ‘ hour ’ with them was a twelfth part of day¬ 
light, and not a fixed space of 60 measured minutes, as with us. If 
the two statements had been inverted — if Mk 15 25 had described 
the end of the trial and Jn 19 14 the raising of the cross — this elas¬ 
ticity might have amply covered both. As the two passages stand, 
it hardly does so. 

We may ask ourselves whether, supposing that the slaughter of 
the Paschal lambs began at 3 p.m. (the time of slaughter is given 
at 3-5 p.m. by Jos. B/vi. ix. 3), there would not be a rather strong 
temptation on typological grounds to fix the moment of the death 
of the Messiah at that hour. The other notes of time would natu¬ 
rally be conformed to this. But, on the other hand, St. John’s 

* sixth hour ’ seems inconveniently late for the events which have 
to be compressed between it and the evening. The whole question 
must be left open. There is a choice of possibilities, but nothing 
more. 

Can we get beyond a similar choice on the last and 
most important point (3), the discrepancy as to the day 
of the month of the Crucifixion and of the Last Supper? 
Perhaps not. 

It is the Last Supper which the Synoptists appear 

to fix by identifying it with the Passover. They say 
expressly that on the morning of the ‘ first day of 


THE LAST EVENTS 


149 


unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Passover’ 
(Mk 14 12 II), the disciples asked where the Passover was 
to be eaten. This would be on the morning of Nisan 
14. In the evening, which from twilight onwards 
would belong to Nisan 15, would follow the Last 
Supper, and on the next afternoon (still, on the Jewish 
reckoning, Nisan 15) the Crucifixion. St. John, on the 
other hand, by a number of clear indications (Jn 13 1 
18 28 i9 14- 31 ) implies that the Last Supper was eaten 
before the time of the regular Passover, and that the 
Lord suffered on the afternoon of Nisan 14, about the 
time of the slaying of the Paschal lambs. 

We are thus left with a conflict of testimony; and 
the question is, on which side the evidence is strongest. 
Now, if we are to believe a very competent Jewish 
archaeologist, Dr. Chwolson, the Synoptists begin with 
an error. * From the Mosaic writings down to the 
Book of Jubilees (cap. 49), Philo, Josephus, the Pales¬ 
tinian Targum ascribed to Jonathan ben Uziel, the 
Mishnah, the Talmud, the Rabbinical writings of the 
Middle Ages, indeed down to the present day, the Jews 
have always understood by the phrase :rfa fitflFi Dr 
ni2iDn “the first day of the feast of unleavened bread,” 
only the 15 th, and not the 14th ’ (Das letzte Passamahl 
Christi u. der Tag seines Todes , p. 3 f.) ; so that it 
would be a contradiction in terms to say with Mk i4 12 || 
‘ on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacri¬ 
ficed the Passover.’ It is, however, only right to add 
that Chwolson’s assertion is denied by another very 
good authority, Dr. Schiirer, ThL , 1893, col. 182. 

[Schiirer does not directly meet the statement that 
where the feast of Unleavened Bread is represented as 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


150 

extending over eight days, the days intended are 
Nisan 15-22, not 14-21.*] 

Waiving this point, however, for the present, we 
observe (after Chwolson, but cf. Authorship of the 
Fourth Gospel ’ 1872, p. 206 f. etc.) that the Synoptists 
make the Sanhedrin say beforehand that they will not 
arrest Jesus ‘on the feast day,’ and then actually arrest 
Him on that day; that not only the guards, but one 
of the disciples (Mk 14 47 1 |) carries arms, which on the 
feast day was not allowed; that the trial was also held 
on the feast day, which would be unlawful (on these 
points see Chwolson, op. cit. p. 6 ff.) ; that the feast 
day would not be called simply ‘ Preparation ’; that 
the phrase ‘coming from the field’ (Mk i5 21 ||) means 
properly ‘ coming from work ’; that Joseph of Arimathsea 
is represented as buying a linen cloth (Mk 15 46 ), and 
the women as preparing spices and ointments (Lk 
23 s6 ), all of which would be contrary to law and 
custom. 

It follows that the Synoptists are really inconsistent 
with themselves, and bear unwilling witness to the 
chronology of St. John. We may be still reluctant to 
think that the contradiction is final. The Synoptists, 
so far as they identify the Last Supper with the Pass- 
over, look as if they were telling the truth. It is 
possible that there may be some way of reconciling the 
two accounts, which we do not know enough of the 
circumstances to specify. 

* It is worth noting that the Gospel of Peter agrees with the 
Johannean rather than the Synoptic tradition, placing the Cruci¬ 
fixion not on, but before, the first day of unleavened bread (7rpd fuas 
tu> v afrj/xup, Ev. Pet. 3). 


THE LAST EVENTS 


151 

One hypothesis, which the writer was at one time 
tempted to entertain, — very tentatively, — that the 
‘ Passover ’ which lay before the disciples and the 
Sanhedrin was not the Passover proper, but the eating 
of the Chagigah (so Edersheim, M‘Clellan, Nosgen), 
he now believes to be untenable (see Expos. 1892, i. 
17 ff., 182 f., and Wright, Problems , p. 173 ff.). It is 
more likely that, for some reason or other, the regular 
Passover was anticipated. 

Dr. Chwolson, writing as an archaeologist, and a 
Jewish archaeologist, would account for such anticipation 
by the fact that in the year of the Passion, Nisan 15 
(not 14) fell upon a Sabbath. But it must be confessed 
that his argument seems strained (cf. also Schiirer in 
ThL , ut sup .). 

Mr. Wright thinks that the Synoptists have com¬ 
bined the narrative of the Last Supper with that of 
some previous Paschal meal partaken of by our Lord 
(Problems , p. 179 ff.). But even if this hypothesis held 
good, it would hardly meet the case; because it is just 
the details of the Last Supper, belonging to it qua 
Last Supper ( e.g . the ‘ cup of blessing ’), which remind 
us of the Passover. And, in any case, the hypothesis 
deserts the documents too far to be at all capable of 
proof. 

As the question at present stands we can only 
acknowledge our ignorance. [The literature will have 
been sufficiently given in the course of this section; cf. 
esp. Mr. A. Wright’s Some New Testament Problems, 
London, 1898, p. 147 ff] 

§ 61 . (iii.) The Prophetic Teaching of the Last Week . 


152 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


— This, too, has raised difficulties which are not only 
apparent but real. It is important to bear in mind that 
no less than six distinct kinds of prediction are ascribed 
to our Lord during this week or in the period preceding. 
There is (i) the prediction of His own death and resur¬ 
rection. There is (2) the prediction of the siege and 
destruction of Jerusalem. With this in the great 
passage (Mk 13 1 |) is directly connected (3) the predic¬ 
tion of the end of the world and the last judgment. 

(4) The discourses in Jn clearly predict the coming of 
the Paraclete as the substitute for Christ Himself. 

(5) In another leading passage (Mk 9 1 ) a phrase is used 
which may be explained, though it is not usually 
explained, of the remarkable spread of the Christian 
Church from the Day of Pentecost onwards. Lastly 

(6) , there is the explanation which is frequently given 
of the 1 Coming of the Son of Man ’ as a so-called 
‘ historical coming,’ a coming not exhausted by a single 
occasion, but repeated in the great events of history. 

The first three of these classes of predictions are, in 
any case, authentic and certain. To the believer in the 
genuineness of the Fourth Gospel the prophecy of the 
Paraclete is equally certain, and there is much which 
goes to confirm it in the Acts and Epistles inde¬ 
pendently of its direct attestation. The other two 
forms of prediction are more hypothetical. They have 
been introduced more or less in order to meet the 
difficulties, although they may have substantial grounds 
of their own. We will not as yet beg the question 
either way. 

The great difficulty is that as our documents stand 
the second and third predictions are intimately con- 


THE LAST EVENTS 


153 


nected with each other, and in at least one other 
passage it would seem as if it were expressly stated 
that the coming of the Son of Man ( i.e . the final 
Coming, the Coming to Judgment) would take place 
within the lifetime of that generation. We know that 
it has not so taken place, and the great question is 
what we are to say to this. Is it an error in One who 
has never been convicted of error in anything else ? 
We must not endeavour to explain away facts; but we 
may interrogate them, and interrogate them somewhat 
strictly, to see whether they are facts or no. 

We cannot disguise from ourselves, that, whatever 
the precise language used by our Lord, the disciples 
would be exceedingly prone to attribute to Him the 
prediction of His own return as near at hand. The 
connexion of the Messiah with a world-wide judgment 
was no new doctrine, but was a common feature in the 
Jewish apocalypses. But this return would seem to 
them, as applied to our Lord, the necessary complement 
of the life of humiliation which He had led upon earth. 
For it was reserved the full triumph over His enemies 
which so far must have seemed very imperfect. Resur¬ 
rection and Ascension would seem to be only foretastes 
of the great coming in glory on the clouds of heaven. 
They were steps, but only steps, towards the goal. 

We might have been sure, even if we had not 
been told, that the disciples would naturally fix their 
thoughts on this Second Coming, and that it would be a 
natural inference for them to suppose that it was near 
at hand. Instances like the comparison of Mt 24 s9 = 
Mk i3 24 =Lk 21 25 show that the expectation as to time 
was not fixed but variable. 


154 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


On the other side, no doubt, must be set the fact 

that in the apostolic circle the belief in the nearness of 
the Second Coming was almost universal (i Th 4 14ff -, 
i Co 7 >29ff - 16 23 , 2 Co 5 3 , Ro 13 1112 , Ph 4 5 , 1 P 4 7 , 

1 Jn 2 18 , Rev i 3 22 10 etc.). The obvious conclusion to 
draw from this would be that the belief had a common 
root in the teaching of Christ Himself. 

And in favour of that conclusion might be quoted the 
language of 1 Th 4 15 , though it may be questioned how 
much of this is a ‘ word of the Lord/ and how much the 

construction put upon it by St. Paul. The ease with 

which the apostles postponed their expectation under 
the teaching of events would tell against the sup¬ 
position that the words of Christ had been precise on 
the subject; and when we come to look into the 
Gospels there are many hints that the time of the 
Second Coming could not be fixed precisely and might 
be distant (Mt 2 4 37 ' 51 || 25 10 ' 1314 ). These passages are 
indeed so clear that they may be fairly said to neutralize 
those which are quoted on the other side, and to 
heighten the probability that the apparent definiteness 
of these other passages is due to the disciples rather 
than to the Master. 

But another hypothesis has been put forward to 
remove the difficulty. It has been supposed that the 
Coming of the Son of Man in the places where it is 
spoken of as near at hand refers, not to the final 
coming, but to another kind of coming in the great 
events of history. The prologue of St. John’s Gospel 
appears to point to such repeated comings (Jn i 9 ); and 
if any event deserves the name, it might well be 
given to the Destruction of Jerusalem, which was 


THE LAST EVENTS 


155 


certainly one of the turning-points of history, and had 
a momentous influence upon the fortunes of Chris¬ 
tianity. There is no doubt that our Lord directly 
predicted this catastrophe; and it might well seem that 
the passages which apparently speak of the final com¬ 
ing as near were due to a confusion in the minds 
of the disciples between the two events regarded as 
‘ Comings.’ 

It is, however, a question whether this idea of 
repeated coming can be made good. Most recent 
writers are inclined to set it down as a modernism 
(Schwartzkopff, Weissagungen Jesu Christi, etc. p. 155 ; 
Holtzmann, Neutest. Theol. i. 315). It is also very doubt¬ 
ful whether it has any real support in OT. What 
the prophets looked forward to was ‘ the day of the Lord ’ 
— a single great intervention of God — not a day or 
succession of days. 

On this point the writer is glad to be able to refer to a note which 
he has received from Dr. Driver: ‘ The usual expression is “ the day 
of Jehovah ”: in Is 2 12 , however, it is indef. (“ for there is a day 
for,” etc., or “Jehovah hath a day”; Zee 14 1 has also “a day”; 
Ezk 30 3 is lit. “ For near is a day, and near is a day for Jehovah”; 
Is 34 8 “ For there is a day of vengeance for Jehovah (or “ Jehovah 
hath”), a year of recompense for,” etc.; also “his days” in appar¬ 
ently the same sense, Job 24 1 . But these hardly differ except 
formally from the usual “ day of Jehovah.” I do not think that a 
succession of judgments is represented under this figure — except, of 
course, in so far as what the prophet pictured as taking place in a 
single day was in reality effected gradually.’ 

Another hypothesis, however, also appears deserving 
of consideration. The strongest of all the passages 
which would make our Lord expressly predict His own 
Second Coming within the apostolic age itself is Mt 16 28 
‘Verily I say unto you, There be some of them that 


156 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


stand here which shall in no wise taste of death, till 

they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.’ But 
when we compare this with the parallels, Mk 9 1 = 

Lk it is clear that the words Son of Man are 
intrusive, and that the clause really runs, ‘ till they see 
the kingdom of God come with power ’ ( om . ‘ with 
power,’ Luke). It is not the ‘Son of Man coming in 
his kingdom,’ but the * kingdom ’ itself which comes. 

What is meant by the kingdom here? Is it not a 
very natural interpretation to explain it of that great 

intervention of the Spirit of God in the world, that 
great influx of Divine powers and energies which dates 
from Pentecost ? In other words, is it not natural to 

equate it with the promise of the Paraclete in the 
Fourth Gospel, where it is implied that the coming of 
the Paraclete is equivalent to the coming of Christ 
Himself? (Jn 14 16 - 18 ). 

The teaching of the Fourth Gospel respecting the 
Paraclete is already strongly confirmed by the part 
assigned to the Holy Spirit by St. Paul ; and if the 
explanation just suggested* holds good, it would be also 
confirmed from another and unexpected quarter. 

There was at one time a strong tendency in the advanced liberal 
camp to get rid entirely of the apocalyptic and eschatological 
element in the teaching of our Lord. The chief means through 
which this is done has been the supposed discovery that in the 
discourse of Mk 13U there is incorporated a ‘Little Apocalypse’ 
of Jewish (Weizsacker) or Jewish-Christian (Colani, Pfleiderer, 
Weiffenbach) origin, usually regarded as a ‘fly-sheet’ composed in 
a.d. 67-68 during the troubles which immediately preceded the 
siege of Jerusalem, and identified with the ‘ oracle ’ which led to 

* A similar view is taken by Haupt, p. 133 f., and Bruston (Holtz- 
mann, Neutest. Theol. i. 315 n.), but commended itself to the writer 
of this independently. Cf. also Swete, ad. loc. 



THE LAST SUPPER 


I 57 


the flight of the Christians to Pella (Eus. HE ill. v. 3). The first 
to hit upon this idea was Colani (Jesus Christ et les Croyances 
Messianiques de son Temps , ed. 2, 1864, p. 201 ff.), who was 
followed by Weizsacker, Pfleiderer, and on an elaborate scale by 
Weiffenbach, Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu , Leipzig, 1873. This 
last-named work is usually referred to as having established the 
position. In the final form of the theory the ‘ fly-sheet ’ in question 
is supposed to consist of Mk 13 7_9a |] 14-20 1 | 24-27 1 | 30-31 1 |. And it is true 
that these verses are fairly detachable from the rest and make a 
fairly compact whole. 

By thus eliminating the central passage on which the eschato¬ 
logical teaching of Jesus seemed to rest, it became not very 
difficult to explain away that teaching altogether. Weiffenbach 
did so by the hypothesis that the critically verified allusions to the 
Second Coming of the Messiah all originally referred to His 
Resurrection , the predictions of which formed the genuine nucleus 
out of which the rest had grown through misunderstanding of the 
words of Jesus and the blending with them of current apocalyptic 
doctrines. By this expedient, Weiffenbach, whose object was less 
radical than that of most of those who went w’ith him, escaped some 
real difficulties; but just in this it may be doubted whether he has 
found any follower. It will be seen that the critical analysis of 
Mk 13 1 | is the starting-point of the whole construction: and that 
has not perhaps as yet been brought to any final solution. 


§ 62. iv. The Last Supper. — The part of the Last 
Supper of which it is most incumbent upon us to speak 
here is its culmination in the solemn acts and words 
which institute the second of the two great Sacraments. 
Besides the debates of centuries which have gathered 
round this subject, a number of questions have been 
raised in recent years which require discussion. In 
particular, new light has been thrown upon the text of 
one of our leading authorities. And our first step must 
be to determine as nearly as we can its exact bearing. 


§ 63. (1) The Text of Lk. 22 14-20 . —The importance of 


158 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


this section is such, and it is so desirable that the 
evidence should be given with completeness and pre¬ 
cision, that we may be forgiven if in this instance we 
print the full text of the original (after Greek RV), 
and then proceed to give the more crucial variants in 
technical fashion. 

The evidence of the leading Latin MSS is given in full; that of 
the two oldest forms of the Syriac Version in a retranslation, based 
for the Sinai MS on Mrs. Lewis and Merx, and for the Curetonian 
on Baethgen. For the Coptic Version the new critical edition is 
used (Oxford, 1898). 

Lk. 22 14 " 20 . 14 Kal 6re kykvero ij wpa, dvkirecre, Kal ol air 6<tto\ol aiiv 

atrip. 15 Kal ehre irpbs abrobs, ’Em.6vp.la iiredbpifcra touto rb ird<rx a 
(payeiv ped’ vpdv irpb tov pe iradelv 18 \kyio yap vptv, Srt ov pi] <pdyio 
our6, kus otov 7t \ijpio6ri tv rrj fiaaCkelq. tov 9 eov. 17 Kal Sejjapevos 
iroTifipiov eix a P ia ' T 'W a ^ Aa/Sere tovto, Kal Siap^plaare els eavrobs' 

18 \tyu ydp vptv, 8tl ob prj irha airb tov vvv airb tov yeviriiparos ttjs 
apirtXov tws 6tov ij fiaaiXela tov Qeov eX6i ?. 19 Kal Xafi&v dprov ebxo-pio’- 
T'fiaas eK\aae , Kal edioKev abrois Xtyiov, T ovt6 term rb awpa pov rb virkp 
bpdv biSbpevov’ tovto iroieire els ttjv £p$jv dvdpvrjinv. 20 Kal to 7 roT'qpiov 
uxrabrus pera rb beiirviprai Xtyiov, Tovto rb iroT^piov r\ Kaivi] biad'qKi) tv 
Tip a'lparl pov, rb virkp vp(ov tKXwbpevov. 

Locum integrum habent Codd. Grcec. et Verss. omn., iis tantum 
testibus exceptis qui infra nominantur; item Latt. cfq Vulg.; 
agnoscunt, Tert. adv. Marc. iv. 40; Eus. Can.; Bas. quce 
feruntur Ethica ; Cyril. Alex. Comm. in Luc. 

Om. w. 16 - 17,18 Cod. Copt. K ( Catena Curzoniana , excerpto ut 
videtur Tito [ Bostrensi ]. 

Om. vv. 17 - 18 Lect. 32, Pesh. codd. 

Om. vv. 19b - 20 rb virkp vpQv 5i56p. — tKxvvbpevov, Daff 2 i 1 . 

Lisdem omissis transp. vv. 17 - 18 ita ut partem v. 19 priorem 
sequantur b e. [ 16 Dico enim vobis, quia ex hoc non mandu- 
cabo illud, donee ... in regno dei. 19 Et, accepto pane, 
gratias egit, et fregit, et dedit illis, 17 dicens : Hoc est corpus 
meum. Et accepto calice, gratias egit; et dixit : Accipite hoc 
et dividite inter vos. 18 dico enim vobis, quod non bibam 
de generatione hac vitis hujus, donee regnum dei veniat. 


THE LAST SUPPER 


159 


21 Verumtamen ecce manus, etc. b 16 Dico enim vobis quia 
jam non manducabo illud doneque adimplear in regno di. 19 et 
accepit panem et gratias egit et fregit et dedit eis 17 dicens hoc 
est corpus meu. Et accepit calice et gratias egit et dixit 
accipite vivite inter vos. dico enim vobis amodo non vivam 
(sic) amodo de potione vitis quoadusque regnum di veniat 
verum ecce manus, etc. e.] 

Item transp. vv. 18 - 18 omisso (Cur.) vel partim interjecto (Sin.) v. 20 
Syrr. (Sin.-Cur.). [ 16 . . . £a>s 6rov wXripudrj iv rrj (3acr . rod 0eoO. 
19 Kal Xafi&v dprov eOx a / n<rri i £ras eKXaaev Kal ebuKev avrots X4y<ov 
rovrb itxr 1 rb aQpd px)v rb vpQv bt.bbp.evov ( om . Cur.)* rovro 7r oieire 
els tt]v iprfv avdpvqaiv. 17 Kal (waabrus per a. rb benrvijaai ins. ex 
v. 20 Sin.) be^dpevos Torifipiov (vel rb tot.) ebx a P l<J " r 'il <J ' as ehre- 
\d(3ere tovto biap^plaare els eavrois ( rovrb £<rn rb aIpa pov [17] 
Kaivrj biadijKtj add. Sin.). (ins. ydp Sin.) bpiv 6r 1 a7rd rod 

vvv oi> pr) 7 rlo) airb rod yevvr)paros toijtov rijs apir^Xov (vel om. ?) 
£us 8rov i) (3a<r. rod deov cX^rj.] 

To the textual critic these phenomena are fairly clear. 
The omission of vv. 19b_20 (Daff 2 il) belongs to the oldest 
form of the Western text. The next step (be) was to 
transpose the order of vv. 17 * 18 and 19a , so as to make 
the sequence of the Bread and the Cup correspond to 
that in the other authorities. The next (Cur.) was 
to supplement the words relating to the Bread from 
1 Co n 24 . The next (Sin.) was to supplement in like 
manner the part relating to the Cup by somewhat free 
interpolations partly suggested by Matthew, Mark, but 
mainly from 1 Co n 25 . In this instance Syr.-Sin. 
represents a later stage than Syr.-Cur., though it is 
more often earlier. The omissions of vv. [ 16 ] 17> 18 are 
probably not important. 

We have then confronting each other the primitive 
form of the Western text, which is shorter, makes 
Luke transpose the order of the Bread and the Cup, 


i6o 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


and omits all mention of a second Cup, and the great 
mass of Greek MSS and other authorities, which in¬ 
troduce a second Cup, or second mention of the Cup, 
and fill out the whole mainly from St. Paul. We 
cannot doubt that both these types of text existed early 
in the second century. Either may be original. And 
this is just one of those cases where internal evidence is 
strongly in favour of the text which we call Western. 
The temptation to expand was much stronger than to 
contract; and the double mention of the Cup raises real 
difficulties of the kind which suggest interpolation. 

§ 64 . (2) Relation of the Texts to each other . — The 
adoption of the Western text of Luke greatly dimin¬ 
ishes the coincidences between St. Luke and St. Paul. 
Indeed it reduces them to the practically equivalent 
ci iXapio-Tyoas for €v\oyrjo-a<s (in reference to the Bread; 
Matthew, Mark use it of the Cup). The greatest loss 
is that of the apparent confirmation by St. Luke of the 
command to repeat the rite in memory of its Founder. 
It may be doubted, however, whether the introduction 
of this into the text of Luke, which — to obtain the 
circulation it had — must have taken place exceedingly 
early, and must have been carried out at the head¬ 
quarters of the Church, is not even stronger testimony 
to the current practice of the Church than that of a 
single writer could be, even though that writer was an 
evangelist. 

As to the main lines of the rite all the authorities are 
agreed. All note the taking of the Bread, the blessing 
(or ‘ giving thanks ’), the breaking, the words, * This 
is my Body.’ All note the Cup, which both in the 


THE LAST SUPPER 


161 

Synoptic (Matthew, Mark) and Pauline tradition is 
related to the [new] Covenant inaugurated by the shed¬ 
ding of the Blood of the Messiah. In the Synoptics 
(Matthew, Mark, Luke) there is an express mention of 
the giving of the Bread to the disciples, with the further 
command, ‘ Take ’ (Matthew, Mark), 4 eat ’ (Matthew), 
and a like communication of the Cup (Synoptics, though 
with some difference of phrase). And whereas St. Paul 
emphasizes the redemptive value of the sacrificed Body 
(to virlp i/xuv lectio vera), Matthew, Mark do the same 
for the shedding of the Blood (to irep\ [v7r€p] ttoXXwv 
£ i<Xyvv 6 p.evov Matthew, Mark, and eis a<£ecriv apxipTiwv 

Matthew). St. Paul not only doubles the command for 
repetition, but also adds, * For as often as ye eat this 
bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death 
till he come.’ 

§ 65 . (3) Other NT Evidence. — We thus have the 
institution of the Sacrament fully set before us. But 
if we look at one of the documents upon which we 
have been drawing, the first in order of writing, though 
it is only incidentally historical, 1 Co n, we find there 
that the Sacrament proper is associated with something 
else — the common meal or agape (Jude 12 , 2 P 2 13 var. 
led.). We ask ourselves what can be the origin of this 
association ? It can hardly go back to the original 

institution. It is more probable that the association 
arose out of the state of kolvwvlcl described in Ac 2 42 - 44 ~ 46 

43^ 6 i. 2. 

Perhaps it goes back further still, at least to the 
very beginning of the period. For one of the char¬ 
acteristic expressions is rj /cAao-is toG aprov, *Xav 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


162 

dprov (Ac 2 42, *®), of which Blass says, 1 est autem 
k\<xv tov aprov sollemnis designatio cense dominicae.’ 
It must, however, be somewhat wider than that, for 
in the immediate context we have kXwvtcs re Kar ’ 
oTkov aprov p,ere\dp.(3avov rpocfrrjs, k.t.A., where rpofyrj 
would seem to embrace the common meal as well as 
the Eucharist. 

We are reminded further that the same phrase K.\av 
(KarauXav) aprov is repeatedly used of a solemn act of 
our Lord independently of the Eucharist (Mk 6 41 || 8 6 1 | 19 , 
Lk 24 30 ). And we gather from the context of the last 
passage that there was something distinctive in this par¬ 
ticular act by which our Lord was recognized (Lk 24 s5 ). 
We are reminded also of the many instances in which 
attention is specially called to the ‘ blessing ’ (eiXo-yelv 
or evxapurreLv) of food by our Lord. They are the same 
words which are used in connection with the sacramental 
Bread and the sacramental Cup. 

There is something in these facts which is not quite 
fully explained. There are lacuna in our knowledge 
which we would fain fill up if we could. The institution 
of the Eucharist appears to have connexions both back¬ 
wards and forwards — backwards with other meals which 
our Lord ate together with His disciples, forwards with 
those common meals which very early came into existence 
in the Apostolic Church. But the exact nature and method 
of these connexions our materials are not sufficient to make 
clear to us. 

§ 66. (4) Significance of the Eucharist. — We feel 
these gaps in our knowledge when we pass on to 
consider the significance of the Sacrament. Certainly 


THE LAST SUPPER 


163 


Harnack was not wholly wrong, however far we may 
think him from being wholly right, when he held that 
the primary object of Christ’s blessing was the meal as 
such , in its simplest elements, not specifically bread and 
wine (cf. TU vn. ii. 137). 

The prominence given to the meal and to the natural products 
of the earth which contribute to it, finds some support in the euchar- 
istic prayers of the Didache. * First, as regards the cup: We give 
thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of thy son David which 
thou madest known unto us through thy Son Jesus; thine is the 
glory for ever and ever. Then as regards the broken bread: We 
give thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which 
thou didst make known to us through thy Son Jesus; thine is the 
glory for ever and ever. As this broken bread was scattered upon 
the mountains, and being gathered together became one, so may thy 
Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy 
kingdom; for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ, 
for ever and ever. . . . Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all 
things for thy name’s sake, and didst give food and drink unto men 
for enjoyment, that they might render thanks to thee; but didst 
bestow upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through thy 
Son’ (Did. ix. 2-4, x. 3). 

It would, however, be doing an injustice both to the 
ancient and to the modern writer if we supposed that 
they had in view only the gifts of God in nature. 
Harnack writes: ‘ The Lord instituted a meal in com¬ 
memoration of His death, or rather He described the 
food of the body as His Flesh and Blood, i.e. as the 
food of the soul (through the forgiveness of sins), when 
it was partaken of with thanksgiving, in memory of His 
death’ (op. cit. p. 139). And the Didache looks beyond 
the physical eating and drinking to the ‘spiritual food 
and drink,’ and to the ‘ eternal life ’ bestowed through 
the Son; and when it speaks of the ‘holy vine of 
David,’ there is at least an allusion to the Jewish 


164 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


doctrine of the Messiah, if not directly to the Johannean 
allegory of the Vine. 

We thus come round to an aspect of the Supper 
which has been emphasized and illustrated, especially 
by Spitta. There are allusions not only in the im¬ 
mediate context of the words of institution (Mk I4 25 !!), 
but also elsewhere (Lk 14 15 ‘ Blessed is he that shall 
eat bread in the kingdom of God’; cf. Mt 8 11 22 2ff - 
25 10 ) to the language in use among the Jews respecting 
the great Messianic banquet. This took its start from 
the teaching of the Prophets (e.g. Is 25 s ), and has 
points of contact with prominent passages in the 
Wisdom literature. Thus in Pr 9 s Wisdom issues her 
invitation, ‘ Come, eat ye of my bread, and drink of the 
wine which I have mingled ’; which is taken up in Sir 
2419-21 ‘They ea t me shall y e t be hungry, and they 

that drink me shall yet be thirsty.’ And in a like 
connexion the idea of the manna is applied in Wis 
i6 20f - ‘ Thou gavest thy people angels’ food to eat, and 

bread ready for their use didst thou provide from heaven 
without their toil. ... For thy nature (rj wrocrrao-ts aov ) 
manifested thy sweetness toward thy children.’ 

We are clearly upon the line of thought which links 
on to the discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum. 
Indeed we meet here with the same phenomenon that 
has already come before us on other sides of our Lord’s 
teaching. The current ideas are not discarded, but 
taken up on to a higher plane and filled with a new 
content. We have seen that Wisdom was regarded as 
giving herself to be ‘ eaten ’ (/.<?. spiritually appropriated 
and assimilated). Philo repeatedly identifies the manna 
with the Logos (Spitta refers to ed. Mangey, i. 120, 


THE LAST SUPPER 165 

214, 484, 564). Hence we are not surprised to find that 
St. Paul speaks of the irvevfxa tlkov /?pu>/xa and ttvcv- 
fxaTLKov TTo/xa, the miraculously-given meat and drink 
which nourished the Israelites in the wilderness being 
treated as typical of the Christian Sacrament. In 1 Co 
io 4 it is not the water but the stricken rock as the 
source of the water, which St. Paul identifies with 
Christ Himself. But a little further he says plainly, 
‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a com¬ 
munion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we 
break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ ? ’ 
{ib. v. 16 ). And in Jn 6 48 ^ our Lord is made to describe 
Himself as the ‘living bread which came down out of 
heaven,’ and it is explained that the bread which He 
will give is His flesh, for the life of the world. 

We take the view that the discourse in question does 
not relate directly to the Eucharist. But it does not 
do so only because it expresses the larger idea of which 
the Eucharist is a particular concrete embodiment, the 
one leading embodiment which Christ has bequeathed 
to His Church. As there is a communion with Him 
which is wider than — though it culminates in — that 
which we call ko.t i&xrjv, the Holy Communion, so is 
there a sense in which He is the Bread from heaven, 
which is wider than that in which He is given through 
the sacramental Bread, but it is that bread of which He 
said, ‘This is my Body, which is for you.’ 

The parallelism between Jn 6 51 and 1 Co n 24 (cf. Mk 
i4 24 ||) is so close that we are certainly justified in inter¬ 
preting the words of institution in the manner in which 
the Sacrament itself is interpreted by both St. Paul and 
St. John. 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


166 

No writer has brought out this aspect of the Supper 
as signifying primarily the spiritual assimilation of 
Christ more forcibly than Spitta. But when he goes 
on to maintain that the Eucharist has no relation to 
His death, it is sheer paradox, which can be maintained 
only by the most arbitrary methods. 

The assimilation of Christ does not exhaust the mean¬ 
ing of the Sacrament. If we take the words of institu¬ 
tion as they stand, another idea is even more prominent. 
We have seen that there is considerable doubt as to how 
far the Last Supper is to be identified with the Paschal 
meal. St. Paul describes the Death of Christ as the 
Christian Passover (i Co 5 7 ), and not only he but other 
NT writers apply to that Death the language of Sac¬ 
rifice. But the particular sacrifice with which our 
Lord’s own words most directly connect it is the sacri¬ 
fice, or group of sacrifices, which inaugurated the 
Covenant (Ex 24^). As the sprinkling of the blood 
upon the altar of God and upon the people ratified the 
covenant between Israel and Israel’s God, so (it was 
implied) by partaking of the consecrated symbol of the 
Blood of Christ the Christian had brought home to him 
his share in the new Covenant — a covenant which had 
at once its inestimable privileges and its obligations. 
It was the means of admission to the state of Divine 
favour, and it bound over those who were admitted to 
that favour to a life of loyal service. Here, too, if we 
want a comment on the words of institution, we may 
seek it rightly in the later NT writings. For words 
could not well be more strongly attested than those 
which accompany the giving of the bread and of the 
cup, and together they converge upon a root-idea which 


THE LAST SUPPER 


167 

is expanded most directly in He 9 18-28 , but is also illus¬ 
trated by Ro 3 24f - 5 lf * Eph i 7 , 1 P i 19 , 1 Jn i 7 2 2 , 
Rev. i 5 . 

If we start from the idea of the Death of Christ as a 
Sacrifice, then it lies near at hand to conceive of the 
Sacrament as the sacred meal which follows the sac¬ 
rifice. In this there would be combined the universal 
and immemorial significance of such meals as an act of 
communion at once with the Deity worshipped and of the 
worshippers with each other. This double communion, 
under this aspect of the sacrificial meal, seems clearly 
indicated in 1 Co io 16f - 21 , but it is also suggested by 
the words of institution, taken with the distribution of 
the elements of bread and wine, and the stress which is 
laid upon the general participation (‘Drink ye ally ‘they 
all drank ’). 

§ 67 . (5) Critical Theories .— A common feature in 
recent critical theories respecting the Last Supper is 
the denial that the command, ‘This do in remembrance 
of me,’ formed part of the original institution; or, in 
other words, that the particular circumstances which 
marked this solemn parting meal were meant to be 
repeated in the form of a permanent Sacrament. This 
view was put forward about the same time, and, it is 
probable, independently, in England by Dr. P. Gardner 
(The Origin of the Lord’s Supper , London, 1893), and in 
Germany by Julicher in the volume of essays in honour of 
Weizsacker (Theol. Abhandl etc., Freiburg i. B. 1892), 
and by Spitta {Zur Gesch. u. Lit. d. Urchristentums , 
Gottingen, 1893). The English writer is the most 
thoroughgoing. Assuming the correctness of the WH 


168 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


text of Lk 22 19, 20 , St. Paul is left as the sole authority 
for the express command of repetition. It is then 
argued from the phrasing of i Co ii 23 * I received of the 
Lord/ that the whole account belongs to one of St. 
Paul’s ecstatic revelations, and has not a solid historical 
foundation. In default of this it is thought that the 
apostle had been influenced during his stay in Corinth 
by the near proximity of the Eleusinian mysteries, the 
central point in which 4 appears to have been a sacred 
repast of which the initiated partook, and by means of 
which they had communion with the gods’ (p. 18). 

How St. Paul could confuse such subtle external 
influences with a revelation ‘ from the Lord/ and how 
he came to deliver as authoritative instructions to the 
Corinthians what he had (upon the theory) only himself 
acquired during his stay at Corinth, are only incidental 
questions. We cannot tell precisely how St. Paul 
received his knowledge in such a sense that he could 
refer it to the Lord. But the solemn simplicity of 
phrase reads like history, and, so far as other authori¬ 
ties exist, it is completely verified. In any case, it is 
incredible that a usage which is thus treated as practi¬ 
cally the invention of St. Paul could have spread from an 
outlying Gentile Church over the whole of Christendom. 
We cannot doubt that not only the Synoptic version of 
the Supper, but its repetition as a Sacrament, had their 
origin in the Mother Church. The /cAdon? tov aprov 
of Ac 2 42- 46 is an indication of this, which is confirmed 
by the evidence of Ignatius, Justin, and the Didache. 
Spitta’s theory, that the repeated Sacrament was due, 
not to a command of Christ Himself, but to the spon¬ 
taneous instinct of affectionate recollection among His 


THE LAST SUPPER 


169 


disciples, is more possible, but still gratuitous and 
hypercritical. We may not allege the witness of St. 
Luke himself in confirmation of St. Paul, but, as we 
have already seen (p. 160 sup.), the familiar text of his 
Gospel is no less valid evidence of the common belief 
and practice. 

Of the critical theories respecting the origin of the 
Eucharist, that which we have just mentioned is the 
most important. Harnack’s contention, that it was 
sometimes administered with water instead of wine, 
not only here and there among the sects but in 
the main body of the Church, belongs rather to the 
history of the Early Church than to the Life of our 
Lord. It turns, however, upon a somewhat cavalier 
treatment of the text of Justin, and has met with 
strong opposition and (it is believed) practically no 
acceptance. 


Literature. — A summary may be given of the more recent 
special literature to most of which reference has been made. Lob- 
stein, La Doctrine de la Cene , Lausanne, 1889 ; a lucid exposition 
dating from the time before the rise of the newer theories. A reason¬ 
able criticism may go back to it with advantage. Harnack, TUvil. 
ii., 1891 (replies by Zahn, Brot u. Wein , Leipzig, 1892; Jiilicher, 
as below; Headlam, Class. Rev. 1893, P* 63); Jiilicher in Theol. 
Abhandlungen C. von Weizsacker gewidmet, Freiburg i. B. 1892; 
Spitla, Zur Gesch. u. Lit. d. Urchristentums , Gottingen ; P. Gard¬ 
ner, The Origin of the Lord's Supper , London, 1893 (comp, also a 
criticism by Mr. Wright, NT Problems , p. 134 ff.); Grafe in Z. f. 
Theol. u. Kirche , 1895 (said to be an excellent summary of the con¬ 
troversy); Schultzen, Das Abendmahl im NT, Gottingen, 1859 (also 
a full review and examination); Schaefer, Das Herrenmahl, Giitersloh, 
1897. Bishop Wordsworth’s Visitation Addresses on The Holy Com¬ 
munion (2nd ed. 1892), though written before the controversy and 
dealing largely with the liturgical aspect of the question, may be 
specially commended to English readers. 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


I/O 

§ 68. v. The Resurrection. —For our present pur¬ 
pose the discussion of the Resurrection of our Lord 
will resolve itself into a consideration of (1) the evidence 
attesting the fact; (2) the sequence of the events, or 
the appearances which followed the Resurrection; (3) 
the explanations which have been put forward to 
account for the Resurrection without miracle; (4) its 
doctrinal significance. 

§ 69 . (1) The Attestation . — A fact so stupendous as 
the Resurrection needs to be supported by strong 
evidence, and very strong evidence both as regards 
quantity and quality is forthcoming; but all parts of 
it are not of equal value, and it is well that the 
authorities should be compared with each other and 
critically estimated. 

When this is done one piece of evidence drops almost 
entirely to the rear — the concluding verses of St. Mark. 
This is not invalidated merely by the fact that the verses 
were probably not part of the original Gospel. Since 
Mr. Conybeare’s discovery of the Armenian MS, which 
appears to refer them to the ‘ presbyter Ariston ’ or 
* Aristion,’ it is fair to attach that name to them, 
because, although the authority is but slender, there is 
nothing at all to compete with it; and the Aristion 
mentioned by Eusebius (HE iii. 39) as one of the 
4 elders ’ consulted by Papias, would suit the conditions 
as well as any one else belonging to the same genera¬ 
tion (say a.d. 100-125). Such an authority cannot be 
wholly without weight; if it represented a distinct line 
of tradition, its weight would be considerable. But 
when the verses Mk I6 9-20 are examined, it seems 


THE RESURRECTION 


171 

pretty clear that the earlier portion of them is really a 
summary of the narratives in the extant Gospels of St. 
Luke and St. John, and therefore adds nothing to these 
Gospels beyond such further sanction as the name of 
Aristion may give to them. It is proof that the state¬ 
ments in those Gospels were accepted as satisfactory by 
a prominent Church teacher, himself a depositary of 
tradition, in the region where St. John had been active. 
So much the verses contribute, but not more. 

There is still some mystery hanging over the close of 
the Second Gospel. The most probable view appears 
to be that its original conclusion has been lost — it 
is more likely than not —by some purely mechanical 
accident. The fragment that remains, Mk 16 1 " 8 , is 
insufficient to enable us to trace it to its source. If 
we could be sure that it was complete, we should have 
to say that St. Mark was not here drawing upon the 
Petrine tradition, because that tradition could not have 
failed to speak of the appearance to Peter himself. It 
is, however, possible that that was contained in the 
missing portion. 

This may detract somewhat from the weight of the 
common Synoptic narrative, which is here disappoint¬ 
ingly meagre. And yet, if we are to throw the absence 
of any mark of Petrine origin into the one scale, there 
is a little bit of confirmatory evidence which it is fair 
to throw into the other. All through the history of 
the Passion St. Luke has access to a special source, 
which we may well believe to have been oral, but 
which gave him some items of good information. This 
information relates especially to the court of Herod 
Antipas (Lk 23 7-12 ), and it is natural to connect it with 


172 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


the particular mention of ‘ Joanna the wife of Chuza, 
Herod’s steward,’ in Lk 8 3 . Now this very same 
Joanna appears again in St. Luke’s account of the visit 
of the women to the sepulchre (Lk 24 10 ). The rest 

of the paragraph appears to be based as usual upon 
St. Mark. But the renewed mention of Joanna is an 
indication of the special source, which at least goes 
to show that there was nothing in that source which 
conflicted with the Marcan document. In other words, 
it confirms that document by a distinct line of testimony 
(cf. Lk 23 21 - 24 ). 

Is it not possible that the story of the Walk 
to Emmaus has a like origin? The name Cleopas 
(= Cleopatros) is just such as we should expect to 

find in the same Herodian circle. In any case, the 
source bears other marks of being a good one. It 
gives a graphic picture of the dejection through which 
the disciples passed; and the phrase ‘ we hoped that 
it was he which should redeem Israel ’ points back to 
a time before the dreams of national triumph had been 
purified of the grosser element in them. But most 
striking of all is the direct confirmation by St. Paul 

(1 Co 15 5 ) of another very incidental reference, the 
appearance to Peter (Lk 23 s4 ). Not only does St. Paul 
confirm the fact, but he puts it practically in the same place 
in the series. 

We have, then, every reason to think both that 
the special source used by St. Luke was excellent in 

itself, and also that it agreed in substance with the 
fragmentary record of St. Mark. 

If St. Luke thus reaches a hand in one direction 
towards St. Mark, he does so in another direction 


THE RESURRECTION 


173 


towards St. John. For the appearance of Lk 24 36ff - 
corresponds to that of Jn 20 19ff -; and both alike receive 
the seal of authentication from St. Paul (1 Co 15 5 ). 
We may not, for the reason given above, use Mk 16 9 
in ratification of Jn 20 llff -. We note, however, that the 
incident of St. Thomas is a striking concrete illustra¬ 
tion of the disbelief on which so many of our authorities 
lay stress.* For the rest, the narrative in the Fourth 
Gospel must go with the problem as to that Gospel 
generally. It has found a vigorous recent defender in 
Dr. Loofs {Die Auferstehungsberichte und ihr Wert, 
Leipzig, 1898). 

The peculiar element in Matthew might have seemed 
to possess the lowest claim to acceptance, were it not 
for the singular convergence of proof that something 
like the injunction of Mt 28 19 must have been given, 
or most probably was given, by our Lord Himself (see 
p. 100 sup.; also p. 231 ff.). We believe that for this 
paragraph, too, there is solid foundation. 

And yet the Resurrection is a part of the evangelical 
narrative for which the leading witness is, after all, 
not the Gospels, but St. Paul — the double witness 
of what St. Paul says and what he implies. It is 
hardly possible for testimony to be stronger than this 
is. In the same precise and deliberate manner in 

* This trait is not less authentic because it passed over from 
primary documents into secondary (such as the Coptic work dis¬ 
covered by Carl Schmidt and commented upon by Harnack in Theol. 
Studien B. Weiss dargebracht ). It really does throw into relief, 
and the early disciples saw that it threw into relief, the revulsion 
of feeling on the part of the witnesses to the Resurrection and 
the strength of their conviction. Otherwise Harnack, p. 8, and 
Loofs, p. 21. 


174 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


which he had rehearsed the particulars of the Last 
Supper, St. Paul enumerates one by one the leading 
appearances of the Lord after the Resurrection: (i) to 
Peter, (2) to the Twelve (as a body), (3) to an assembly 
of more than five hundred, (4) to James, (5) to all the 
apostles (1 Co I5 5 " 7 ). 

We have spoken of these as the ‘leading’ appear¬ 
ances, because St. Paul doubtless has in view, not all 
who under any circumstances ‘saw the Lord,’ but those 
who were specially chosen and commissioned to be wit¬ 
nesses of the Resurrection (Ac i 22 4 s3 , cf. 1 Co 15 15 ), 
i.e. as we should say, to assert and preach it publicly. 
For this reason there would be nothing in St. Paul’s 
list to exclude such an appearance as that to Mary 
Magdalene (Jn 20 11 ' 18 ). It may have been on this 
ground — because the two disciples involved were not 
otherwise conspicuous as active preachers or prominent 
leaders — that St. Paul does not mention the scene on 
the road to Emmaus. But it is equally possible that 
the story of this had not reached him. 

We have seen by what a striking coincidence this 
story confirms, from a wholly independent quarter, the 
first appearance to Peter. The next in order, that to 
the Twelve, may well be identical with that which is 
more exactly described in Lk 24^, Jn 20 m4 . The 
appearance to James is attested by another line of 
tradition embodied in the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews. Beyond this identifications are uncertain. 

St. Paul contents himself with a bare enumeration, 
not from lack of knowledge, but because he assumes 
knowledge in his readers. He reminds the Corinthians 
of what he had delivered unto them first of all (Iv 


THE RESURRECTION 


175 


7rpwrots, i.e. at the very beginning of his ministry 
among them). This throws back the date of the evi¬ 
dence some four years—we may say from the year 55 
to 51, possibly earlier, but at the latest from 57 to 53. 

We are thus brought to much the same date as that 
of another piece of evidence, not so detailed as that 
in 1 Cor., but quite as explicit, so far as the fact of the 
Resurrection is concerned, the evidence of the first 
extant NT writing, 1 Th i 10 4 14 . The assured tone 
of these passages shows, not only that the apostle is 

speaking from the very strongest personal conviction, 

but that he is confident of carrying his readers with 
him; we may go further and say that the belief to 
which he gives this expression was unquestioned, the 
universal belief of Christians. We might infer this 

from the attitude of St. Paul in regard to it. Unfortu¬ 
nately, we have no evidence equally early from the 

Church of Palestine; but as soon as evidence begins to 
appear it is all to the same effect. The early chapters 
of Acts no doubt represent a Palestinian tradition, per¬ 
haps a written tradition; and they take the same line 
as St. Paul in making it the chief function of the 
apostles to bear witness to the Resurrection (Ac i 8 - 22 
etc.). We need not pursue this evidence further. 

It is noticeable that although there were doubts 
in the Apostolic Age on the subject of resurrection 
(1 Co 15 12 , 2 Ti 2 17f ), it is not as to the resurrection 
of Christ, but as to that of Christians. St. Paul 
argues on the assumption that Christ was really 
raised as from a premiss common to himself and his 
opponents. 

And it is no less noticeable that even the most 


176 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


rationalistic of Christian sects, those (c.g.) which de¬ 
nied the Virgin-Birth, nevertheless shared the belief 
in the Resurrection (Irenaeus, adv. Hcer. 1. xxvi. 1, 2 
[where non before similiter should be expunged]; 
Hippolytus, Ref. Hoer. vii. 35). 

§ 70 . (2) The Sequence and Scene of the Events. — It 
is not an exaggeration — it is only putting in words the 
impression left by the facts — to say that the conviction 
among Christians that Christ was really raised, dates 
from the very morrow of the Resurrection itself. It 
was not a growth spread over a long period and re¬ 
ceiving gradual accretions of strength; but it sprang 
suddenly into existence, and it swept irresistibly over 
the whole body of disciples. Of the force and uni¬ 
versality of the belief there can be no doubt, but when 
we come to details it would seem that from the first 
there was a certain amount of confusion, which was 

never wholly cleared up. We have records of a number 
of appearances, not all contained in a single authority, 
but scattered over several distinct authorities; and it 
is probable enough that even when all the recorded 
appearances are put together they would not exhaust 
all those that were experienced. Different traditions 

must have circulated in different quarters, and speci¬ 

mens of these traditions have come down to us without 
being digested into accordance with a single type. The 
list which approaches most nearly to this character, 
that which is given by St. Paul in 1 Cor., is, as we 
have seen, not so much a digest as a selection. It 
is a selection made for purposes of preaching, and 

consisting of items which had already been used for 


THE RESURRECTION 


177 


this purpose. Compared with this, a story like the 
Walk to Emmaus is such as might have come out of 
private memoirs. The brief record in St. Mark is more 
central, but in its present condition it is too mutilated 
to satisfy curiosity. The narrative of St. John is no 
less authoritative than that of St. Paul, but it is 
authority of a rather different kind. St. Paul writes 
as the active practical missionary, who seeks to com¬ 
municate the fire of his own conviction to others. 
St. John also wishes to spread conviction (Jn 20 31 ), 
but he does so by bringing forth the stores of long 
and intense recollections from his own breast. He too 
selects what had taken the most personal hold upon 
him, and does not try to cover the whole ground. 

It is as a consequence of these conditions that when 
we come to look into the narratives of the Resurrection 
we find them unassimilated and unharmonised. It is 
not exactly easy to fit them into each other. The 
most important difference is as to the chief scene of 
the appearances. Was it Jerusalem and the neigh¬ 
bourhood, or was it Galilee ? The authorities are 
divided. St. Paul and the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews make no mention of locality. Matthew and 
Mark throw the stress upon Galilee. The latter Gospel 
does not indeed (in the genuine portion) record a 
Galilean appearance, but the women are bidden to say 
that the risen Lord would meet the disciples in Galilee 
(Mk 16 7 ). This is in fulfilment of a promise to the 
same effect given in the course of the Last Supper, and 
recorded in the same two Gospels (Mk 14 28 , Mt 26 s2 ). 
The express mention of prediction and fulfilment in 
both Gospels not only proves their presence in the 


i ;8 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


common original, but also shows that they were no 
accidental feature in that original, but an essential part 
of the whole conception. We have besides a Galilean 
appearance described in Jn 21, and clearly implied at 
the point where the fragment of the Gospel of Peter 
breaks off (Ev. Pet. § 12 [60]). 

On the other hand, all the scenes of Jn 20 are laid 
in Jerusalem; and Jerusalem or the neighbourhood is 
the only locality recognised in Lk 24, which ends with 
a command to the disciples to wait in the city for the 
outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Lk 24 49 ). 

It is not unnatural that the critical school should 
regard these two versions as alternatives, one of which 
only can be taken. The more usual course has been 
to follow that of Mark and Matthew, with or without 
the supposition that the grave was really found empty 
(Loofs, p. 18 ff.). According as this assumption was 
made or not, several constructions were possible, but 
all equally speculative. 

Dr. Loofs has, however, recently argued in favour 
of the other tradition represented by Lk-Jn 20. And 
he has certainly succeeded in showing that there is as 
much intrinsic probability on this side as on the other. 
But, in order to carry out this theory, he is obliged to 
treat Jn 21 as having a different origin from the rest 
of the Gospel, and as falling into two parts, one of 
which (the fishing scene = Lk 5 111 ) has got misplaced, 
not having originally belonged to the period after 
the Resurrection, while the other (the dialogue of 
Jn 21 15-23 ) had originally nothing to connect it with 
Galilee. These are strong measures, which, however 
high our estimate of the tradition, Luke-John, are 


THE RESURRECTION 


179 


obviously not open to one who thinks that the identity 
of style between Jn 21 and the rest of the Gospel is 
too great to permit of their separation (the argument 
in Expos. 1892, i. 380 ff., may easily be extended 
to ch. 21). 

The only remaining course is to combine the tradi¬ 
tions, much as they seem to be combined in the Fourth 
Gospel and the Gospel of Peter. We must not dis¬ 
guise from ourselves the difficulties which this solution 
leaves. The most serious of these are caused by the 
command of Lk 24 49 , and the contracted space within 
which we shall have to compress the events in Galilee. 
We have only forty days to dispose of, in all, if we 
accept the traditional date of the Ascension, — and even 
if we regarded this as a round number, the nearness of 
the Day of Pentecost would allow us very little more 
margin. From these Forty Days we should have to 
take off a week at the beginning on account of Jn 20 26 . 
And if, as we reasonably may, we suppose that there 

has been some foreshortening in Lk 24 36 ^ 3 , and that 

two or three distinct occasions are treated as if they 

were continuous, we should still, to find a place for the 
injunction to wait in Jerusalem, have to cut off another 
like period at the end. That would leave not much 

more than three weeks for the retirement to Galilee 

and return to Jerusalem — a length of time which 

cannot be pronounced wholly insufficient, but which 

does not fit in quite naturally with the way in which 
the apostles are described in Jn 21 3 as returning to 

their ordinary occupations. These difficulties would be 
avoided if we could regard the Day of Pentecost as that 
of the following year; but any such hypothesis would 


i8o 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


conflict directly with Ac i 3 , and the interval implied in 
Jn 21 14 * is also a short one. 

Whichever way we turn difficulties meet us, which 
the documents to which we have access do not enable 
us to remove. We have said enough as to the nature 
of these documents, and of the lines of tradition to 
which they give expression. It is not what we could 
wish, but what we have. And no difficulty of weaving 
the separate incidents into an orderly well-compacted 
narrative can impugn the unanimous belief of the 
Church which lies behind them, that the Lord Jesus 
Christ rose from the dead on the third day and appeared 
to the disciples. 

§ 71 . (3) Attempted Explanations. — This universal 
belief is the root fact which has to be accounted for. 
It would be the natural product of a real event such 
as the Epistles assume and the Gospels describe. But 
what if the event were not real ? In that case the 
widely held and deeply planted belief in it must needs 
constitute a very serious problem. 

In the last century a succession of efforts was 
made to account for the belief in the Resurrection 
without accepting it as a fact. Many of the hypo¬ 
theses put forward with this object may be regarded 
as practically obsolete and abandoned. No one now 

* The numbering of this Galilean appearance as the * third ’ 
might seem to be at variance with St. Paul’s list in 1 Co 15 ; but 
it is clear that the appearances which St. John enumerates were 
those to the body of ‘the disciples’ (i.e. primarily, to a group 
including the apostles). He himself does not count that to Mary 
Magdalene; nor would he have counted those to St. Peter or the 
Emmaus travellers. 


THE RESURRECTION l8l 

believes that the supposed death was really only a swoon, 
and that the body laid in the tomb afterwards revived, 
and was seen more than once by the disciples (on this 
see a trenchant sentence by Strauss, Leben Jesu , 1863, 
p. 298, end of paragraph). Equally inadmissible is the 
hypothesis of fraud — that the body was really taken 
away by Joseph of Arimathaea or Nicodemus, and that 
the rumour was allowed to grow that Jesus was risen. 
The lingering trace of this which survives in Renan, 
Les Apdtres , ed. 13, p. 16 (‘ceux qui savaient le secret 
de la disposition du corps ’), is thrown in quite by the 
way as a subordinate detail. 

More persistent is the theory of ‘ visions.’ This has 
been presented in different forms, assigning the leading 
part now to one and now to another of the disciples. 
Renan, who goes his own way among critics, sees in 
this part of the narrative a marked superiority of the 
Fourth Gospel {Les Apdtres , p. 9). In accordance 
with it he refers the beginning of the series to Mary 
Magdalene (cf. Strauss, Leben Jesu , 1863, p. 309). 
A woman out of whom had been cast ‘ seven devils’ 
might well, he thinks, have been thrown into a state of 
nervous tension and excitement which would give form 
and substance to the creations of fancy. And when 
once the report had got abroad that the Lord had been 
seen, it would be natural for others to suppose that 
they saw Him. Strauss and Pfleiderer {Giff. Led. pp. 
112, 149) start rather from the case of St. Paul. Both 
lay stress upon the fact that he places the appearance 
to himself on a level with those to the older disciples. 
His own vision they would agree in explaining as due 
to a species of epileptic seizure, and the others they 


182 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


would regard as equally subjective, though led up to 
by different trains of psychological preparation. 

It is at this point that some of the best attested 
details of the Resurrection interpose difficulties. To 
carry through a consistent theory of visions, two 
conditions are necessary. (a) If they arose, as Strauss 
supposes, from affectionate dwelling upon the per¬ 
sonality of Jesus, combined with reflection upon certain 
passages of OT (Ps 16 10 , Is 53 10 " 12 ), it follows, almost 
of necessity, that we must also with Strauss throw over 
the tradition of the 1 third day,’ and regard the belief 
as the outcome of a somewhat prolonged process — a 
process spread over weeks and months rather than 
days. ( b ) On the other hand, if we must discard the 
tradition as to the beginning of the appearances, we 
must equally discard that as to their end. The wave 
of feverish enthusiasm to which on this hypothesis they 
owed their origin, certainly would not have subsided 
in the interval between Passover and Pentecost. We 
note, as it is, an ascending scale in the appearances — 
they occur first to individuals (Mary Magdalene, Peter, 
the Emmaus disciples), then to the Ten and the Eleven, 
then to the Five Hundred. We can see how one 
appearance prepares the way for another. St. Peter 
( e.g .) must have been present at three or four. With 
this increasing weight of testimony, and increasing 
predisposition in the minds of the disciples, we should 
naturally expect that the appearance to the Five 
Hundred would contain within itself the germs of an 
indefinite series. We should not have been surprised 
if the whole body alike of Christians and of half Chris¬ 
tians had caught the contagion. But that is not the 


THE RESURRECTION 183 

case. There is just the single appearance to James; 
and then — the vision of St. Paul standing rather by 
itself—with one more appearance to the assembled 
apostles, the list comes to what seems an abrupt 
end. 

This description of the facts rests on excellent evi¬ 
dence. The ‘third day’ is hardly less firmly rooted in 
the tradition of the Church than the Resurrection itself. 
We have it not only in the speech ascribed to St. Peter 
(Ac io 40 ), but in the central testimony of St. Paul, and 
then in the oldest form of the Apostles’ Creed. It is 
strange that so slight a detail should have been pre¬ 
served at all, and still stranger that it should hold the 
place it does in the standard of the Church’s faith. 
We must needs regard it as original. And for the 
circumscribed area of the appearances, we have at 
once the positive evidence of the canonical documents, 
and a remarkable silence on the part of the extra- 
canonical. 

These phenomena are difficult to reconcile with a 
theory of purely subjective visions. An honest in¬ 
quirer like Keim felt the difficulty so strongly that, 
while regarding the appearances as essentially of the 
nature of visions, he held them to be not merely sub¬ 
jective, but divinely caused, for the express purpose of 
creating the belief in which they issued. 

This is the least that must be asserted. A belief 
that has had such incalculably momentous results must 
have had an adequate cause. No apparition, no mere 
hallucination of the senses ever yet moved the world. 
But we may doubt whether the theory, even as Keim 
presents it, is adequate or really called for. It belongs 


184 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


to the process of so trimming down the elements that 
we call supernatural in the Gospel narratives as to 
bring them within the limits of everyday experience. 
But that process, we must needs think, has failed. 
The facts are too obstinate, the evidence for them is 
too strong; and the measures which we apply are too 
narrow and bounded. It is better to keep substantially 
the form which a sound tradition has handed down to 
us, even though its contents in some degree pass our 
comprehension. 

§ 72 . (4) The Permanent Significance of the Resur¬ 
rection .— The innermost nature of the Resurrection is 
hidden from us. And if we ask why the supreme proof 
that God had visited His people took this particular 
form, the answer we can give is but partial. Some 
things, however, seem to stand out clearly. 

( a ) In the first place it is obvious that the idea of a 
resurrection was present to men’s minds. Herod 
thought that the works of Jesus were works of the 
Baptist restored to life (Mk 6 14 * 16 1 |). Men were quite 
prepared to see Elijah or some other of the ancient 
prophets reappear upon the scene (Mk 9 U " 13 ||, Jn i 21 ). 
In Palestine and among the circles in which Christianity 
arose, no mark of special divine indwelling seemed at 
the time so natural. The belief had not been allowed 
to grow up without a reason. 

For ( [b ) from the very first the ideas of bodily and 
spiritual resurrection were closely intertwined together. 
Perhaps the oldest passage in which there is a hint of 
such an idea is the vision of Ezekiel (ch. 37) ; and there 
the revivification of the body is the symbol of a spiritual 


THE RESURRECTION 1 85 

revival. This intimate connexion of bodily and spiritual 
is never lost sight of in Christianity. 

( c ) ‘ Die to live ’ is one of the most fundamental of 
Christian principles, and this principle is embodied 
once for all in the Resurrection. If the one side was 
‘ placarded ’ before the eyes of the world (Gal 3 1 ) in the 
Crucifixion, the Resurrection was a no less signal 
manifestation of the other. There is a double strain 
of inference and application. 

(d) On the one hand, the Resurrection of Christ was 
the pledge and earnest of physical resurrection and the 
life beyond the grave. St. Paul founds upon it the 
hope of immortality (1 Th 4 14 , Ro 8 s4 , 1 Co 6 14 i5 12ff- , 
2 Co 4 14 etc.). 

(<?) But he equally founds upon it the most earnest 
exhortations to holiness of life. It is not only that 
this follows for the Christian as a duty: if his relation 
to Christ is a right relation, it is included in it as a 
necessity (Ro 6 3-6 ). St. Paul can hardly think of the 
physical Resurrection apart from the spiritual. And 
there is a very similar vein in the teaching of St. John 
(Jn 5 24 , 1 Jn 3 14 ). The Resurrection is the corner-stone 
of Christian mysticism. 

(/) In another aspect, as a divine act, the crowning 
mark of divine approval, it is a necessary complement 
of the Crucifixion. It supplies the proof, which the 
world might desiderate, that the Sacrifice of the Cross 
was accepted. If the death of the Cross was a dying 
for human sin, the rising again from the tomb was the 
seal of forgiveness and justification (Ro 4 25 , cf. 6 7 ). St. 
Paul saw in it an assurance that the doors of the divine 
mercy were thrown open wide; and to St. Peter in like 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


186 

manner it was through it that mankind was begotten 
again to a ‘lively hope’ (i P i 3 ). 

All this mass of biblical teaching hangs together. If 
the Resurrection was a reality it has a solid nucleus, 
which would be wanting even to the theory of objective 
visions. The economy which begins with a physical 
Incarnation, naturally and appropriately ends with a 
physical Resurrection. Thus much we can see, though 
we may feel that this is not all. 

Literature. — Besides the recent literature mentioned above 
(among which the paper by Dr. Loofs deserves rather special atten¬ 
tion), and besides the treatment of the subject in numerous works 
on the Gospel History and on Apologetics, it is well to remember 
two monographs in English — Dr. Westcott’s Gospel of the Resurrec¬ 
tion (first pub. in 1866), and the late Dr. Milligan’s The Resurrection 
of our Lord (first pub. in 1881). 

§ 73. (vi.) The Ascension. —The Resurrection in 
itself was incomplete. It was not the goal, but the 
way to the goal. The goal was the return of the Son 
to the Father, with His mission accomplished, His 

work done. 

§ 74. (1) The apostolic writers unanimously repre¬ 

sent this return as a triumph. The keynote is struck 
in the speech which is put into the mouth of St. Peter 
on the day of Pentecost* (Ac 2 33 ' 36 ). It would seem 

* When we ask how these early discourses were transmitted to 
the writer of the Acts, there is a natural reluctance to use them 

too strictly as representing the exact words spoken. And yet, taken 

as a whole, they fit in singularly well to the order of development 
and the thought of the primitive community, which has an ante¬ 
cedent verisimilitude and accords well with indications in the Pauline 
Epistles. 


THE ASCENSION 


18; 

that the form of expression which the conception 
assumed was influenced largely by Ps no 1 , a passage 
to which attention had been drawn by our Lord Him¬ 
self shortly before His departure, and which spontane¬ 
ously recurred to the mind as soon as the nature of His 
return to the Father had declared itself. Along with 
this would be recalled the saying with which our Lord 
had answered the challenge of the high priest (Mk 
14 62 II) - Psalm and saying alike represented the Messiah 
as seated 4 at the right hand ’ of the Most High. This 
phrase appears to have at once (in the forms k< Be&uv 
and kv 8e£ia) established itself in the language of the 
primitive Church; it occurs repeatedly, not only in the 
Acts (7^) and in the Pauline Epistles, but in Hebrews, 
1 Peter, and Revelation; and, like the detail of the ‘ third 
day,’ it occupies a fixed place in the Apostles’ Creed. 

The speech of St. Peter culminates in the declaration, 
‘ Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God 
hath made him, whom ye crucified, both Lord and 
Christ ’ (Ac 2 36 ); and it is substantially a paraphrase 
of this when in a famous passage St. Paul, after speak¬ 
ing of the humiliation of the Christ, adds, ‘ Wherefore 
also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the 
name which is above every name, that in the name of 
Jesus every knee should bow,’ etc. (Ph. 2^). The 
return of the Son to the Father was not merely the 
resumption of a previous state of glory (Jn 6 62 17 5 etc.), 
it was the resumption of it with the added approval and 
recognition which His obedience unto death had called 
forth. We speak of these things Kara av 0 p(O 7 rov; or 
rather, we are content to echo in regard to them the 
language of the apostles and of the first Christians, 


188 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


who themselves spoke Kara avOpuTrov. The reality 
lies behind the veil. 

§ 75. ( 2 ) How did our Lord Jesus Christ enter upon 
this state of exaltation? Now that we have before 
us corrected texts of the Gospels, it would seem to be 
probable that they did not give an answer to this 
question. The answer was reserved for the second 
volume which St. Luke addressed to Theophilus; it 
forms the opening section of the Acts of the Apostles. 

Mk 16 19 belongs to the Appendix to the Gospel, which we have 
seen (p. 170 f. sup.') to have been probably composed, not by St. 
Mark himself, but by the presbyter Aristion in the early years of the 
second century. The reading of Lk 24 51 stands thus — 

Ecu dvecfi^peTo ets rbv ovpavbv, K c ABCLXAAII, etc., c f q Vulg. 

Syrr. (Pesh.-Harcl.-Hier.) rell., Cyr.-Alex. Aug. 1 /2. 

Om. X*D, a b e fife Syr.-Sin., Aug. 1 /2. 

This means that the omission of the words is a primitive Western 
reading, which in this case is probably right: it was a natural 
gloss to explain the parting of the Lord from the disciples of the 
Ascension; there was no similar temptation to omit the words if 
genuine. 

In Ac i 1 " 11 the final separation is described as an 
* ascent unto heaven.’ When the last instructions had 
been given, the disciples saw their Lord ‘ taken up 
(tTrrjpOr)), and a cloud received him out of their sight.’ 
The over-arching sky is a standing symbol for the 
abode of God; and the return of the Son to the Father 
was naturally represented as a retreat within its blue 
recess, the ethereal home of light and glory. It is 
sometimes necessary that a symbol should be acted as 
well as written or spoken. The disciples were aware 


THE ASCENSION 189 

of a vanishing, and they knew that their Lord must be 
where His Father was. 

That the narrative in the Acts is not a myth seems 
proved by an authentic little touch which it contains, a 
veritable reminiscence of what we may be sure was 
their real attitude at the moment, though it soon ceased 
to be. When they asked, ‘ Lord, dost thou at this 
time restore the kingdom to Israel?’ their thoughts 
were still running in the groove of the old Jewish 
expectation. It is the last trace of them that we have 
in this naive form. 

§76. ( 3 ) From the point of view of Christian doc¬ 
trine, for those who not only accept the facts of the life 
of Christ but the construction put on those facts by the 
writers of NT, the main stress of the Ascension lies 
upon the state to which it forms the entrance. ( a ) It is 
the guarantee for the continued existence of Him 
who became incarnate for our sakes. (J?) It not only 
guarantees His continued existence, but the continued 
effect of His work. It puts the seal of the divine 
approval upon all that the incarnation accomplished. 
It is the final confirmation of the lessons of the Baptism 
and of the Transfiguration, ‘This is my beloved Son, 
in whom I am well pleased.’ (c) The primitive phrase 
‘at the right hand of God’ describes as nearly and as 
simply as human language can describe the double 
truth that Christ still is and that His work still is, that 
the Incarnation was no transient episode, but a per¬ 
manent and decisive factor in the dealing of God with 
man. ( d ) This truth is stated in other words in the 
doctrine of the High Priesthood of Christ, a doctrine 


THE MESSIANIC CRISIS 


190 

implicitly contained in many places in the writings of 
St. Paul, and worked out with great clearness and ful¬ 
ness in the Epistle to the Hebrews. There is something 
in the relation of the exalted Son to the Father and to 
His Church corresponding to and that may be expressed 
in terms of the functions of the earthly high priest in 
relation to God and to Israel. The great High Priest 
presents the prayers of His people; He intercedes for 
them ; He ‘ pleads ’ or ‘ presents ’ His own sacrifice. 
Only, when we use this language it should be remem¬ 
bered that we are not speaking of ‘specific acts done 
or words spoken by Christ in His glory. His glorified 
presence is an eternal presentation; he pleads by what 
He is ’ (Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood , p. 246 n.). 

Literature. — Dr. Milligan left a volume on the Ascension as 
a pendant to that on the Resurrection (Baird Lectures for 1891), 
which is the most comprehensive treatment of the subject in 
English. 


CHAPTER VII. 


SUPPLEMENTAL MATTER: THE NATIVITY 
AND INFANCY. 

§ 77 . Throughout His public ministry Jesus passed 
for the son of Joseph and Mary, two peasants of 
Nazareth. Some of those who were present at the long 
discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum expressed 
their astonishment at the high pretensions which it 
seemed to contain, by asking, ‘ Is not this Jesus, the 
son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?’ (Jn 
6 4 ; cf. i 45 ). The inhabitants of Nazareth appear to 
have put a similar question when He came and preached 
there. The exact words are somewhat differently trans¬ 
mitted. Mk 6 3 has (in the better attested text), ‘Is 
not this the carpenter ? ’ Mt 13 s5 ‘ Is not this the 
carpenter’s son?’ Lk 4 s3 a passage which, although 
divergent, contains reminiscences of the same original, 
has still more directly, ‘Is not this Joseph’s son?’ In 
the preliminary chapters the same evangelist speaks 
repeatedly of ‘ his parents ’ (yoms, Lk 2 s7, 43 ). And 

not only does he himself resolve this into ‘his father 
and his mother’ (2 s3 ), but he makes the mother of Jesus 
say, ‘Thy father and I sought thee sorrowing’ (2 48 ). 


192 


SUPPLEMENTAL MATTER 


It is in keeping with this language that both the 
First and the Third Gospels place in their forefront 
genealogies of Jesus, which, in spite of many attempts 
to prove the contrary, must be admitted to trace His 
descent through Joseph and not through Mary. 

Yet, on the other hand, the same two Gospels, 
though differing widely in the details of the narrative, 
assert unequivocally that Joseph had no share in the 
parentage of Jesus, and that the place of a human 
father was taken by the direct action of the Spirit of 
God. The differences show that the two traditions are 
independent of each other; and yet both converge 
upon this one point. They agree not only in represent¬ 
ing Jesus as born of a virgin, but also in representing 
this fact as supernaturally announced beforehand, — in 
the one case to Joseph, in the other case to Mary. 

What account is to be given of these seeming incon¬ 
sistencies? We cannot get rid of them by assigning 
the opposed statements to different sources. In St. 

Matthew the genealogy which ends in Joseph is followed 
immediately by the narrative of the Annunciation and 
Virgin-Birth. In St. Luke the successive sections of 
ch. 2, which begins with the nativity and ends with 
the scene of the boy Jesus in the Temple, where we 
have seen that such expressions as * his parents,’ ‘ his 
father and mother’ occur so freely, are linked together 
by the recurrent note, ‘ Mary kept all these sayings, 
pondering them in her heart,’ ‘ his mother kept all these 
sayings in her heart’ (Lk 2 19 - 61 ; cf. also the argument 
which Professor Ramsay skilfully draws from i 80 - 

2 4 o. 52*^ And w h en we turn to St. John we cannot but 
* Was Christ born at Bethlehem ? p. 87. 


THE NATIVITY AND INFANCY 


193 


remember that the Gospel which records so frankly the 
Jews’ question, ‘ Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, 
whose father and mother we know ? ’ if it nowhere 
refers directly to the Virgin-Birth, yet goes further 
than any other Gospel in asserting the pre-existence of 
the Son as God with God. 

What we regard as inconsistent will clear itself up 
best if we consider the order of events and the way in 
which these preliminary stages of the history were 

gradually brought to the consciousness of the Church. 

The sources from which the knowledge of them was 
derived were, without doubt, private.* We shall con¬ 
sider presently the character of these sources. We 
know more about that of which use was made by St. 
Luke than of that used by St. Matthew, and we can 

rely upon it as a historical authority with greater con¬ 
fidence. We shall see that it is ultimately traceable 
to the Virgin herself, in all probability through the 
little circle of women who were for some time in her 

company. 

We are told expressly that the Virgin Mary ‘ kept all 
these sayings (or things) in her heart.’ She, if any 

one, might well say, /xva-rrjpLov i/xov i/xoc. It was only 
by slow degrees in the intimacy of confidential inter- 

* ‘ Luke gives, from knowledge gained within the family, an 
account of facts known only to the family, and in part to the 
Mother alone’ (Ramsay, op. cit. p. 79). Professor Ramsay, how¬ 
ever, seems to go too far in contrasting Matthew with Luke 
when he says, ‘Matthew gives the public account, that which was 
generally known during the Saviour’s life and after His death.’ 
We do not think that any account was known during the Saviour’s 
life, and we prefer to think of the Matthsean version as parallel to 
rather than contrasted with the Lucan. 


13 


194 


SUPPLEMENTAL MATTER 


course that she allowed her secret to pass beyond her¬ 
self, and to become known. Even if committed to 
writing before it came into the hands of St Luke, 
it probably did not reach any wide public until it was 
embodied in his Gospel. The place which the Virgin- 
Birth occupies in Ignatius and in the Creed seems to 
show that it cannot have been much later than the 
middle of the century before the knowledge of it made 
its way to the headquarters of Christianity. But 
before some such date as that there is no reason to 
think that it was generally known. It was no part of 
our Lord’s own teaching. The neighbours among 
whom His early life was passed, the changing crowds 
who witnessed His miracles or gathered round Him 
to hear Him, had never had it proclaimed to them. 
* Jesus son of Joseph, the prophet of Nazareth,’ was 
the common name by which He was known. And it is 
a great presumption of the historical truth of the 
Gospels that they so simply and naturally reflect this 
language. We may well believe that the language 
was shared, as the ignorance which caused it was 
shared, even by the Twelve themselves. It would be 
very fitting if the channel through which these sacred 
things first came to the ears of the Church was a little 
group of women.* 

* * If we are right in this view as to Luke’s authority, and as 
to the way in which that authority reached him, viz. by oral 
communication, it appears that either the Virgin was still living 
when Luke was in Palestine during the years 57 and 58 ... or 
Luke had conversed with some one very intimate with her, who 
knew her heart and could give him what was almost as good as 
first-hand information. Beyond that we cannot safely go; but 
yet one may venture to state the impression — though it may be 


THE NATIVITY AND INFANCY 


195 


§ 78. i. The Sources of the Narrative. — It has often 
been observed that whereas the first two chapters of 
St. Matthew appear to be written from the point of 
view of Joseph, the first two chapters of St. Luke are 
written from the point of view of Mary. In Matthew 
the Annunciation is made to Joseph; it is Joseph who 
is bidden in a dream not to fear to take to him his 
wife; Joseph who is told what the Son whom she is to 
bear is to be called. It is Joseph, again, who is warned 
to take the young Child and His mother into Egypt, 
and who, when the danger is past, receives the com¬ 
mand to return; and it is Joseph also whose anxious 
care is the cause that the family settle in Galilee and 
not in Judaea. On the other hand, when we turn to 
St. Luke the prominent figures at first are the two 
kinswomen, Elisabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, 
and Mary. Mary herself receives the announcement of 

generally considered fanciful — that the intermediary, if one 
existed, is more likely to have been a woman than a man. There 
is a womanly spirit in the whole narrative, which seems incon¬ 
sistent with the transmission from man to man, and which, more¬ 
over, is an indication of Luke’s character; he had a marked 
sympathy with women’ (Ramsay, op. cit. p. 88). In view of the 
close resemblance between much that appears in the text and 
Professor Ramsay’s admirable chapter, it is perhaps right to 
explain that this had not been read at the time when the text was 
written, and that it represents an opinion formed long ago. The 
question as to whether the source was written or oral is left open, 
because there is reason to think that St. Luke used a special 
(written) source which may have been connected with the women 
mentioned below, and through them with the Virgin Mary. The 
writer could not speak quite so confidently as Professor Ramsay 
as to the nearness of this source to the Virgin, but he does not 
think that it could be more than two or three degrees removed 
from her. It must have been near enough to retain the fine touches 
which Professor Ramsay so well brings out. 


96 


SUPPLEMENTAL MATTER 


the holy thing that is to be born of her. The Magnificat 

is her song of thanksgiving. She treasures in her 

heart the sayings of the shepherds and of her Divine 
Son. The aged Simeon points his prophecy to her, 
and foretells that a sword should pierce through her 
soul. 

In regard to the Matthaean document we are in the 
dark. The curious gravitation of statement towards 

Joseph has a reason; but beyond this there is not 

much that we can say. It would not follow that the 
immediate source of the narrative was very near his 
person. In the case of St. Luke we can see farther down 
the vista. We have already had grounds for connect¬ 
ing the source from which he draws ultimately with the 
Mother of Jesus. Through what channel did it reach 
the evangelist? Probably through one of the women 
mentioned in Lk 8 3 24 10 ; and as Joanna is the least 
known of the group, and therefore the most likely to 
drop out for any one not personally acquainted with 
her, perhaps we may say, by preference, through her 
(cf. p. 172 sup.). We learn from Jn 19 25 (cf. Ac i 14 ) 
that the Mother of Jesus was thrown into contact with 
this group, — perhaps not for any great length of time, 
but yet for a time that may well have been sufficiently 
long for the purpose. And we believe that thus the 
secret of what had passed came to be disclosed to a 
sympathetic ear. 

Such an inference, if sound, would invest the contents 
of these chapters with high authority. Without enlarg¬ 
ing more on this, we may perhaps be allowed to refer 
in confirmation to what has been already said as to the 
appropriateness of the picture given of the kind of 


THE NATIVITY AND INFANCY 


197 


circle in which Christ was born, and in which His 
birth was most spontaneously greeted (see p. 22 ff.). 
It was just the Simeons and Annas, the Elisabeths and 
Zachariahs, who were the natural adherents of such a 
Messiah as Jesus. And the phrases used to describe 
them are beautifully appropriate to the time and 
circumstances, ‘ looking for the consolation of Israel,’ 
Hooking for the redemption of Jerusalem’ (Lk 2 25 - 38 ). 

The elaborate and courageous attempt of Resch (TU iv. Heft 3, 
1897) to reconstruct, even to the point of restoring the Hebrew 
original, a Kindheits-evangelium , which shall embrace the whole 
of the first two chapters of Luke and Matthew with some extra- 
canonical parallels, is on the face of it a paradox, and, although 
no doubt containing useful matter, has not made converts. 


§ 79. ii. The Text of Mt i 16 .—Within recent years 
certain phenomena have come to light in the text of 
the first chapter of St. Matthew which demand con¬ 
sideration in their bearing upon this part of our 
subject. 

The peculiarities of the Curetonian Syriac, the (so-called) 
Ferrar group, and some MSS of the Old Latin, had been known 
for some time, but in themselves they did not seem of very great 
importance. A new and somewhat startling element was intro¬ 
duced by the publication of the Sinai-Syriac in 1894. More 
recently still a further authority has appeared, which contains the 
eccentric reading. This is the curious dialogue published by Mr. 
F. C. Conybeare under the names of Timothy and Aquila (Oxford, 
1898). It professes to be a public debate between a Christian 
and a Jew held in the time of Cyril of Alexandria (a.D. 412-444), 
and it is in the main a string of testimonia commonly adduced in 
the Jewish controversy. It is a question how far some of this 
material comes from a work older than the date assigned. The 
criticism of the dialogue has been acutely treated by Mr. Cony¬ 
beare, but the subject needs further examination. We will set 


SUPPLEMENTAL MATTER 


198 

forth the evidence at length, and then make some remarks 
upon it. 

Mt I 16 ’Ia/cw /3 5 b iyivvTfffev rbp ’1 rbp Avdpa M aplas, ?js 

iyevpifjdri Ttjctovs 6 Xeybpepos Xpiarbs, Codd. Grcec. unc. qui 
exstant omn. minusc. quamplur . Verss. (incl . f PF2* def 1 ), cf. 
Dial . Tim. et Aq. fol. 113 r°. 

Ta/cwjS 8 b iybpprjae rbp ’hoar/tp, (p p.prjo'TevOeiaa irapdbpos M apiap. 
bybppr)<rep ’I rjaovp rbp \ey 6 p.epos XpLGTbp, 346—'826—828 ( auctore 
K. Lake, def. 13-69); cui desponsata virgo ( om. q) Maria 
genuit Jesum qui dicitur (vocatur g 1? q), Christus a gi, q, cf 
Dial. Tim. et Aq. fol. 93 v°. 

Similiter , cui desponsata virgo Maria genuit (peperit d) Jesum 
Christum ( om. top Xeybp., Christum Jesum d) d k Syr.-Cur. 

Jacob autem genuit Joseph, cui desponsata erat virgo Maria : 
virgo autem Maria genuit Jesum b ( cf. c). 

’laKijJp iylpprjcrep rbp ’luxr-rjff) rbp Apbpa Maplas, O; ?js iyepp^dri ’Irjaovs 
6 \eybp.epos Xpiarbs • Kal ’Iw<rr ;0 iyepprjtrbp top T tj<tovp rbp \eybpx~ 
pop XpLO-rbp, Dial. Tim. et Aq. fol. 93 r°. 

Ta/cuj /3 iyepp. rbp ’lotar/cp’ Tw< rii<p, (p IpLprjcrTeijdri Tapdlpos Mapidp., 
iyIpprjaep T rjtrovp rbp Xeybpxpop Xpurrbp, Syr.-Sin. 

The eccentric readings all occur within the range of the so- 
called Western text, and there is no doubt that they belong to a 
very early stage in the history of that text. Two opposite ten¬ 
dencies appear to have been at work, which are most conspicuously 
represented in ancient forms of the Syriac Version, though the 
original in each case was probably Greek. 

On the one hand there was a tendency to emphasize the 
virginity of Mary, and to remove expressions which seemed in 
any way to conflict with this. For the blunt phrase, ‘Joseph her 
husband,’ the Curetonian Syriac with the oldest Latin authorities 
substitutes, ‘ Joseph to whom was espoused ’ — not only ‘ Mary,’ 
but ‘the Virgin Mary.’ A little lower down (with Tatian’s 
Diatessaron ), for ‘Joseph her husband being a just man’ (6 aprjp 
avTrjs 8 Lkcuos &p') it reads ‘Joseph being a just man’ (di >^p 5 Ik. lap'). 
In v. 20 for ‘ thy wife ’ it has * thine espoused.’ In v. 24 , again with 
Tatian, it has some such softened phrase as ‘ he dwelt chastely 
with her,’ and for ‘ took his wife ’ it has ‘ took Mary ’; and in v. 25 
(but here in agreement with XBZ al .) it has simply ‘brought forth 
a son,’ — not ‘ her firstborn son.’ 

In some of these readings, or parts of them, the Sinai-Syriac 
agrees, but along with them it has others which seem to be of a 


THE NATIVITY AND INFANCY 


199 


directly opposite tendency. The most prominent is, of course, 
‘Joseph begat Jesus,’ in v. 16 . We might have thought that this 
was an accident due to the influence on the mind of the scribe of 
the repeated eytuv-rjaev of the previous verses ; but in v. 21 the same 
MS has ‘ bear thee a son,’ and in v. 25 * she bore him a son ’; and in 
Lk 2 5 there is a counter change to that of the Curetonian in v. 20 
(‘with Mary his wife’ for ‘Mary his espoused’); all which read¬ 
ings hang together, and appear to be distinctly anti-ascetic. And 
now the singular reading in v. 16 has found a coincidence in the 
conflate text of one of the quotations in the Dialogue of Timothy 
and Aquila . 

It is of course true that both these authorities — the Sinai-Syriac 
and the Dialogue — are very far from thoroughgoing. The Syriac 
text has not tampered in any way with the explicit language of 
w. 18 - 20 ; and, what is especially strange — in the very act of com¬ 
bining T u<rri<p with tytvvrjtrep it inserts a large fragment of the 
Curetonian reading (y ipLurjaTelidr] irapOtvos M apid/x) substituted for 
rbv Avdpa Maplas. On the other hand, the peculiar reading occurs 
in one only out of three quotations in the dialogue, and there in the 
form of a conflation with the common text. But is it the case that 
these authorities point to some form of reading older than any of 
those now extant, which made Joseph the father of Jesus ? 

There would be a further question, whether, supposing that such 
a reading existed, it formed any part of the text of our present 
Gospel ? 

There would seem to be three main possibilities. 

(a) The genealogy may in the first instance have had 
an existence independently of the Gospel, and it may 
have been incorporated with it by the editor of the 
whole. In that case it is quite conceivable that the 
genealogy may have ended ’Iwor>)<£ iyevvYjaev tov 
T rja-ovv. Unless it were composed by someone very 

intimate indeed with the Holy Family, it might well 

reflect the current state of popular opinion in the first 
half of the apostolic age. ( b ) The reading might be the 
result of textual corruption. There would always be a 
natural tendency in the minds of scribes to assimilate 


200 


SUPPLEMENTAL MATTER 


mechanically the last links in the genealogy to pre¬ 
ceding links. A further confusion might easily arise 
from the ambiguous sense of the word yewav, which 
was used of the mother as well as of the father (cf. Gal 
4 24 ). If we suppose that the original text ran, Taxr^ 
tov avSpa Mapias 17 iyevvrjcrev *1 yjctovv tov Xeyo/xevov 
XpLo-rov, that would perhaps account for the two 
divergent lines of variants better than any other. A 
reading like this appears to lie behind the Coptic (Bo- 
hairic) Version. ( c ) It is conceivable that the reading 
(or group of readings) in Syr.-Sin. may be of definitely 
Ebionite origin. That which we call * heresy ’ existed 
in so many shades, and was often so little consistent 
with itself, that it would be no decisive argument 
against this hypothesis that the sense of the readings is 
contradicted by the immediate context. It would be 
enough for the scribe to have had Ebionite leanings, 
and he may have thought of natural and supernatural 
generation as not mutually exclusive. We can only 
note these possibilities; the data do not allow us to 
decide absolutely between them. 

Literature. — The fullest discussion of this subject took place 
in a lengthy correspondence in The Academy , towards the end of 
1894 and beginning of 1895. 

§ 80. iii. The Genealogies. — At the time when it 
was thought necessary at all costs to bring one biblical 
statement into visible harmony with another, two hypo¬ 
theses were in favour for reconciling the genealogy of 
our Lord preserved in Mt i 1 ' 17 with that in Lk 3 s3 - 38 . 
These were (a) the hypothesis of adoption or levirate 
marriage, according to which the actual descent might 


THE NATIVITY AND INFANCY 


201 


differ at several points from the legal descent, so that 
there might be two equally valid genealogies running 
side by side; and (J?) the hypothesis that the one 
genealogy might be that of Joseph, as the reputed 
father of Jesus, and the other genealogy (preferably St. 
Luke’s) that of Mary. A certain handle seemed to be 
given for this latter supposition by the tradition which 
was said to be found in the Talmud (tr. Chagig. 77, 
col. 4, Meyer-Weiss), that Mary was the daughter of 
Eli. [This statement appears to be founded on a 
mistake, and should be given up; see G. A. Cooke in 
Gore, Dissertations , p. 39 f.] It was felt, however, 
that this view could only be maintained by straining the 
text of the Gospel; and it is now generally (though not 
quite universally) agreed that both genealogies belong 
to Joseph. On the other hand, the theory of levirate 
marriage or adoption, though no doubt a possible ex¬ 
planation, left too much the impression of being coined 
to meet the difficulty. The criticism of to-day prefers 
to leave the two genealogies side by side as independent 
attempts to supply the desiderated proof of Davidic 
descent. Were they the work of our present evangelists, 
or do they go back beyond them ? Both genealogies 
appear to have in common a characteristic which may 
point to opposite conclusions as to their origin. That 
in the First Gospel bears upon its face its artificial 
structure. The evangelist himself points out (Mt i 17 ) 
that it is arranged on three groups of fourteen genera¬ 
tions, though these groups are obtained by certain 
deliberate omissions. That would be, in his case, con¬ 
sistent with other peculiarities of his Gospel : he 
evidently shared the Jewish fondness for artificial 


202 


SUPPLEMENTAL MATTER 


arrangements of numbers (Sir John Hawkins, Hora 
Synoptica, p. 131 ff.). From this fact we might infer 
that the stem of descent had been drawn up by himself 
from the OT and perhaps some local tradition. If such 
tradition came to him in writing, the list might still 
conceivably have ended in some such way as that which 
is found in the Sinai-Syriac, though if the list was first 
committed to writing in the Gospel the probability that 
it did so would be considerably diminished. 

It would seem that a like artificial arrangement (77 
generations = 7 X n) underlies the genealogy in Luke. 
But as this is not in the manner of the Third Evan¬ 
gelist, and as he does not appear to be conscious of 
this feature in his list, it would be more probable that 
he found it ready to his hand. In that case it would 
be natural that it should come from the same source as 
chs. 1. 2, which would invest the genealogy with the 
high authority of those chapters. We cannot speak too 
confidently, but the conclusion is at least spontaneously 
suggested by the facts. 

§ 81. iv. The Census of Quirinius. — Until a very 
short time ago the best review of the whole question of 
the Census of Quirinius (Lk 2 1-5 ) was that by Schiirer 
in NTZG § 17, Anhang 1 (HJP 1. ii. 105 ff.). This was 
based upon a survey of the whole previous literature of 
the subject, and was really judicial, if somewhat severely 
critical, in its tone. As distinct from the school of 
Baur, which was always ready to sacrifice the Christian 
tradition to its own reconstruction of the history, Dr. 
Schiirer is an excellent representative of that more 
cautious method of inquiry which carefully collects the 


THE NATIVITY AND INFANCY 


203 


data and draws its conclusions with no prepossession in 
favour of the biblical writers if also without prejudice 
against them. In the present instance he summed up 
rather adversely to the statements in St. Luke; and in 
the state of historical knowledge at the time when he 
wrote (1890?), that he should do so was upon his prin¬ 
ciples not surprising. 

According to St. Luke, our Lord was born at Beth¬ 
lehem on the occasion of a general ‘enrolment’ (d 7 ro- 
ypa<j>rj) ordered by the Emperor Augustus and carried 
out in Palestine under Quirinius as governor of Syria. 
The date was fixed as being before the death of Herod, 
which took place in b.c. 4; and it was explained that 
Joseph and Mary, as belonging to the lineage of David, 
had gone up to enter their names at Bethlehem, David’s 
city. 

There were several points in this statement which 
seemed to invite criticism, (i.) In the first place, there 
was no other evidence that Augustus ever ordered a 
general census of the empire, although there was good 
reason to think that he took pains to collect statistics in 
regard to it. (ii.) Even if he had ordered such a census, 
it seemed doubtful whether it would be carried out in a 
kingdom which possessed such a degree of independence 
as Judaea. And (iii.) if it had been conducted in the 
Roman manner, there would have been no necessity for 
Joseph and Mary to leave their usual place of residence. 
Further, (iv.) while it was allowed, on the strength of a 
well-known inscription, that Quirinius probably twice 
held office in Syria, yet, as it was known that Sentius 
Saturninus was governor b.c. 9-7, and Quinctilius 
Varus at least b.c. 7-4, it was argued that Quirinius’ 


204 


SUPPLEMENTAL MATTER 


first term of office could not be before b.c. 3-1, i.e. after 
the death of Herod, (v.) As there was, in any case, a 
census of Judaea conducted by Quirinius after its 
annexation by the Romans in a.d. 6, it was thought 
that St. Luke had a confused recollection of this, and 
antedated it (in the Gospel, though not in Ac 5 s7 ) to the 
lifetime of Herod. 

The chief authority for the census of A.D. 6 is Josephus ; and an 
eminent German scholar, Dr. Th. Zahn, put forward in 1893 the 
view that it was Josephus who was at fault in dating from this 
year an event which really fell in B.C. 4-3 (Ntut Kirchliche Zeit- 
schrifty pp. 633-654). This brought the data more nearly, though 
still not entirely, into agreement with St. Luke. The theory need 
not, however, be more fully considered as it has not met with 
acceptance, and there can be little doubt that it seeks a solution of 
the difficulties in the wrong direction. 

There was one little expression which might have 
given pause to the critics of St. Luke, viz. his careful 
insertion of the word 1 first ’ (‘ the first enrolment made 
when Q. was governor of Syria ’). It might have 
shown that he was in possession of special knowledge 
which would not permit him to confuse the earlier 
census with that of a.d. 6. And yet the existence of 
the earlier census remained without confirmation, until 
it suddenly received it from a quarter which might 
have been described as unexpected if experience did not 
show that there is hardly anything that may not be 
found there — the rubbish heaps of papyrus fragments in 
Egypt. 

Almost at the same time, in the year when Dr. Zahn 
made his ingenious but unsuccessful attempt (1893), 
three scholars, one English and two German, made 
the discovery that periodical enrolments ( airaypa^ai ) 


THE NATIVITY AND INFANCY 


205 


were held in Egypt under the Roman empire, and that 
they came round in a fourteen-year cycle. The proof 
of this was at first produced for the enrolments of 

a. d. 90, 104, 118, 132, and onwards; but in rapid 
succession the list was carried back to a.d. 76, 62, 
and 20. 

This gave the clue, which was almost at once seized, 
and the whole problem worked out afresh in masterly 
fashion by Prof. W. M. Ramsay, first in two articles in 
Exp. 1897, and then in his volume, Was Christ born 
at Bethlehem ? A Study in the Credibility of St. Luke 
(London, 1898). It was not too much to say that every 
detail is absolutely verified. The age of Augustus as 
compared with that which precedes and with that which 
follows is strangely obscure, and the authorities for it 
defective. But considering this, the sequence of argu¬ 
ment which Prof. Ramsay unfolds is remarkably clear 
and attractive. (i.) He shows it to be very probable 
that there was a series of periodical enrolments initiated 
by Augustus at the time when he first received the 
tribunician power, and his reign formally began in 

b. c. 23 (this is the official date usual in inscriptions, 

p. 140). (ii.) He also makes it probable that this was 

part of a deliberate and general policy — that the census- 
takings were not confined to Egypt, but extended to 
other parts of the empire, and more particularly to 
Syria. Here, too, there was a tendency to periodic 
recurrence, though the evidence is not, and is not likely 
to be, so complete as in the case of Egypt, (iii.) He 
has shown that Palestine was regarded as part of the 
‘Roman world,’ i.e. of the empire. Though Herod had 
the liberty of a rex socius , the Roman power and the 


20 6 


SUPPLEMENTAL MATTER 


emperor’s will were always in the background; he had 
to see that the whole Jewish people took an oath of 
allegiance to the emperor ; he could not make war 
without being called to account; he could not determine 
his own successor or put to death his own son without 
an appeal to Rome; in a moment of anger Augustus 
threatened that whereas he had hitherto treated him 
(Herod) as a friend, he would henceforth treat him as a 
subject (Jos. Ant xvi. ix. 3). It was therefore likely 
enough that Herod would wish, if he was not positively 
ordered, to fall in with the imperial policy by taking a 
census of his people, as another subject king did in 
Cilicia in a.d. 35. (iv.) But although Herod held a 
census at the instance of Augustus, it would be in keep¬ 
ing with his whole character and conduct to temper it 
to Jewish tastes as much as possible; and he would do 
this by following the national custom of numbering the 
people by their tribes and families. This was the broad 
distinction between this enrolment of Herod’s and the 
subsequent census of a.d. 6 or 7. The latter was 
carried out by Roman officials and in the Roman 
manner, which was the real cause of the offence which 
it gave, and of the armed resistance which it excited, 
(v.) Some uncertainty still hangs over the mention of 
Quirinius. Mommsen thought that he was the acting 
legatus of Syria in b.c. 3-1. Prof. Ramsay inclines to 
the view that he held an extraordinary command by the 
side of Varus some years earlier, as Corbulo did by 
the side of Ummidius Quadratus, and Vespasian by the 
side of Mucianus. Such a command might carry with 
it the control of foreign relations, and be included 
under the title rjye/iuv. 


THE NATIVITY AND INFANCY 


207 


§ 82. The Meaning of the Virgin-Birth. — It is but a 
very few years since there arose in Germany (the date 
was 1892) a rather sharp controversy in which many 
leading theologians took part over the clause of the 
Apostles’ Creed, 1 Conceived by the Holy Ghost, born 
of the Virgin Mary.’ The echoes of that controversy 
reached this country, and, although not much was said 
in public, it is probable that some impression was made 
upon public opinion. This impression was strengthened 
by the publication soon afterwards of the Sinai-Syriac 
with its peculiar reading, which was not unnaturally 
caught at as representing a more ancient and truer text 
than that to which we are accustomed. But if what 
has been written in the preceding sections has been 
followed, it will have been seen that for some time 
afterwards there was a certain reaction. The eccentric 
reading has found its level. As it stands, it cannot 
possibly be original; and however it arose, it cannot 
really affect the belief of the Church, as it introduces 
no factor which had not been already allowed for. And 
at the same time the historical value of the documents, 
especially Lk 1. 2, has been gradually rising in the 
estimation of scholars, until the climax has been reached 
in the recent treatise of Prof. Ramsay. Even those 
who desire to see things severely as they are must feel 
that the opening chapters of St. Luke are full of small 
indications of authenticity, that they are really not 
behind the rest of the Gospel, and that they form no 
exception to the claim made at the outset that the facts 
recorded have been derived from 4 eye-witnesses and 
ministers of the word.’ [The most recent period (1901- 
1904) would have to be differently characterized.] 


208 


SUPPLEMENTAL MATTER 


Along with this process there has been growing up 
a better and fuller philosophy of the Incarnation. This 
has been due especially to some of the contributors 
to Lux Mundi , and may be seen in Bishop Gore’s 
Bampton Lectures (1891) and Dissertations (1895), in Dr. 
Moberly’s Lux Mundi essay, and in Mr. Illingworth’s 
Bampton Lectures (1894) and Divine Immanence (1898). 

To those who regard primitive ideas as compounded 
of nothing but idle imagination, ignorance, and super¬ 
stition, the evidence in folk-lore of stories of super¬ 
natural birth (such as are collected in Mr. Sidney 
Hartland’s Legend of Perseus , vol. i., 1884) seems to 
discredit all accounts of such birth, even the Christian. 
They do not sufficiently consider the entire difference 
of the conditions under which the Christian tradition 
was promulgated from those which surrounded the 
creations of mythopoeic fancy. The Christian tradition 
belongs to the sphere, not of myth but of history. It 
is enshrined in documents near in date to the facts, 
and in which the line of connexion between the record 
and the fact is still traceable. 

But, apart from this, if we believe that the course of 
human ideas, however mixed in their character—as all 
human things are mixed—is yet part of a single de¬ 
velopment, and that development presided over by a 
Providence which at once imparts to it unity and pre¬ 
scribes its goal,—those who believe this may well see 
in the fantastic outgrowth of myth and legend some¬ 
thing not wholly undesigned or wholly unconnected 
with the Great Event which was to be, but rather a 
dim unconscious preparation for that Event, a groping 
towards it of the human spirit, a prophetic instinct 


THE NATIVITY AND INFANCY 209 

gradually moulding the forms of thought in which it 
was to find expression. 

And if we ask further what it all means, — why the 
Son of Man was destined to have this exceptional kind 
of birth, the answer is, because His appearance upon 
earth — His Incarnation, as we call it — was to be in its 
innermost nature exceptional; He was to live and 

move amongst men, and was to be made in all points 
like His brethren, with the one difference that He was 
to be—unlike them — without sin. But how was a 
sinless human nature possible ? To speak of a sinless 
human nature is to speak of something essentially 
outside the continuity of the species. The growth of 
self-conscious experience, expressed at its finest and 

best in the formulae of advancing science, has empha¬ 
sized the strength of heredity. Each generation is 

bound to the last by indissoluble ties. To sever the 

bond, in any one of its colligated strands, involves a 
break in descent. It involves the introduction of a 
new factor, to which the taint of sin does not attach. 
If like produces like, the element of unlikeness must 
come from that to which it has itself affinity. Our 
names for the process do but largely cover our ignor¬ 
ance, but we may be sure that there is essential truth 
contained in the scriptural phrase, ‘The Holy Ghost 
shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High 
shall overshadow thee; wherefore also that which is to 
be born shall be called holy, the Son of God.’ 

[The most important literature has been mentioned 
in the course of this section.] 


14 

























CHAPTER VIII. 

CONCLUDING SURVEY: THE VERDICT OF 
HISTORY. 

A . Christ in History. 

§ 83. So far we have been involved in the study of the 
details of the Life of Christ, mainly on the basis of the 
Gospels. But the Gospels alone, though the fragments 
which they have preserved for us of that Life are 
beyond all price, would yet convey an incomplete idea 
of the total impression left by it even upon contem¬ 
poraries, still less of all that it has been in the history 
of the world. Especially would this be the case if, as 
some would have us do, we were to follow the first 
three Gospels only, to the exclusion of the fourth. To 
that point we shall return for a moment presently. 
But the time has now come to enlarge our view, to 
look back upon our subject from the vantage-ground 
which we occupy at the beginning of the twentieth 
century, and to endeavour to see it no longer as an 
episode affecting a small portion of an ‘ unimportant 
branch of the Semitic peoples,’ but as it enters into the 
course of the great world-movement of the centuries. 


21 


212 


CONCLUDING SURVEY 


If we would appreciate this, we must once more go 
back to the Origins, not now so much in search of 
details, as in order, if possible, to catch rather more of 
the total impression. We cannot, of course, attempt 
to interrogate the whole of history. For our present 
purpose it may be enough to consider (i.) the net result, 
if we may so speak, of the portraiture of Christ in the 
Gospels; (ii.) the impression left by a similar reading 
of other parts of the New Testament, especially the 
Epistles; (iii.) the testimony borne by the Early 
Church, both formulated and informal; (iv.) the ap¬ 
peal that may be made to the religious experience of 
Christians. 

The last of these heads is not really so disparate as 
it may seem from the rest. The ultimate object that 
we have in view is to bring home — or to suggest lines 
on which it may be possible to bring home — what 
Christ really was and is to the individual believer. In 
order to do this we endeavour to collect (i.) what He 
was to those among whom He moved during His life 
on earth; (ii.) what He was to His disciples, and 
primarily to the apostles after His departure; (iii.) 
what the still undivided Church apprehended Him as 
being. It will thus be seen that there is no real anti¬ 
thesis, as though the appeal were in the one case to 
history and in the other to experience. For our present 
purpose history may be regarded as the collective ex¬ 
perience of the past, which we are seeking to put into 
line with the individual or collective experience of the 
present. Our historical survey, so far as it goes, 
simply embodies so many superimposed strata of ex¬ 
perience. 


CHRIST IN HISTORY 


213 


§ 84 . i. The Christ of the Gospels. — We should thus 
be inclined to deprecate the attempts which are from 
time to time made to set in contrast some one or other 
branch of the appeal that we are making as against the 
rest. In this country we are accustomed to the opposi¬ 
tion between the Christ of the (Synoptic) Gospels and 
the Christ of ‘ Dogma ’ or of the Church. And in 
Germany of late there has been a tendency to oppose 
the Christ conceived and preached by the apostles to 
the biographical Christ of the Gospels, and the experi¬ 
ence of faith to any external and objective standards. 
(See especially the works of Kahler and Hermann men¬ 
tioned on page 216.) 

The disparagement of the Gospels as biographies 
seems to us, so far as it goes, — and neither writer is 
really very clear on the subject, — to rest upon a some¬ 
what undue degree of scepticism as to the critical use 
that can be made of the Gospels. It does not follow 
that all that is doubted is really doubtful. For a more 
detailed testing of the historical character of the Gospels 
we must content ourselves with referring to the previous 
part of this article, only adding to it the two points 
which will be more appropriately introduced at the end 
of the next section, — the peculiar kind of confirmation 
which the two pictures (the evangelic and the apostolic) 
supply to each other, the difference between them show¬ 
ing that the teaching of the Epistles has not encroached 
upon the historical truth of the Gospels, while the less 
obvious likeness shows that they are in strict continuity. 
We shall also have to state once more in that context 
our reasons for believing the Fourth Gospel to be really 
the work of an eye-witness. 


214 


CONCLUDING SURVEY 


But the point that concerns us most at the present 
moment is that, even if we make to negative criticism 
larger concessions than we have any right to make, 
there will still remain in the Gospel picture ineffaceable 
features which presuppose and demand that estimate 
of the Person of Christ which we can alone call in the 
strict sense Christian. 

Take, for instance, that central passage Mt ii 28 " 38 
‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, 
and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and 
learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye 
shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, 
and my burden is light.’ Could we conceive such 
words put into any other lips, even the loftiest that 
the history of mankind has produced? They are full 
of delicate self-portraiture. They present to us a char¬ 
acter which we may say certainly was, because it has 
been so described. No mere artist in words ever 
painted such a canvas without a living model before 
him. The portrait is of One who is ‘ meek and lowly 
in heart,’ whose yoke is easy and His burden light; 
and yet He speaks of both yoke and burden as ‘ His ’ 
in the sense of being imposed by Him; He invites men 
to ‘ come ’ to Him, evidently with a deep significance 
read into the phrase; He addresses His invitation to 
weary souls wherever such are to be found; and 
(climax of all!) He promises what no Alexander or 
Napoleon ever dreamt of promising to his followers, 
that He would give them the truly supernatural gift of 
rest — the tranquillity and serenity of inward peace in 
spite of the friction of the world; that all this should 
be theirs by ‘ coming ’ to Him. 


CHRIST IN HISTORY 


215 


And then how easy is it to group round such a 
passage a multitude of others! ‘ I say unto you, 
Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth 
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also * 
(Mt 5 s9 ). ‘The Son of Man came not to be ministered 
unto, but to minister’ (Mk io 45 ||). ‘Suffer the little 
children to come unto me; forbid them not: for of 
such is the kingdom of God’ (ib. v. 14 1 |). ‘Whosoever 
would save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall 
lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s shall save it ’ 
(Mk 8 s5 ). ‘ The Son of Man came to seek and to save 

that which was lost ’ (Lk 19 10 , comp, the three parables 
of Lk 15). ‘Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my 
brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me ’ (Mt 25 40 ). 

Sayings like these, it is needless to add, could be 
multiplied almost indefinitely. Through all of them 
there runs, indirectly, if not directly, the same self¬ 
portraitures. And it is a self-portraiture that has the 
same two sides. On the one hand there is the human 
side, the note of meekness or lowliness, condescension 
that is not (though it really is!) condescension but 
infinite sympathy, patience, tenderness; and, on the 
other hand, no less firmly drawn, for all the lightness 
and restraint of touch, an absolute range of command 
and authority; all things delivered to the Son in heaven 
and on earth (cf. Mt n 27 28 18 ). 

That which we have called the ‘ human side ’ fills 
most of the foreground in the Gospels; the other, the 
transcendental side, is somewhat shaded by it; and we 
can see that it was deliberately shaded, that the pro¬ 
portions were such as mainly (though, as we shall see, 
not entirely) corresponded to the facts, or, in other 


216 


CONCLUDING SURVEY 


words, to the divine method and order of presentation. 
But when we turn from the Gospels to the rest of the 
NT we shall find these proportions inverted. 

We only pause upon this Gospel picture a moment 
more to say that, apart from any question of criticism 
of documents or of details in the narrative, it seems to 
us to be utterly beyond the reach of invention. The 
evangelists themselves were too near to the events to 
see them in all their significance. They set down, like 
honest men, the details one after another as they were 
told them. But it was not their doing that these 
details work in together to a singular and unsought 
harmony. 

Literature. — The fullest account of recent discussions as to 
the adequacy and trustworthiness of the presentation of Christ in 
the Gospels will be found in the second enlarged edition of Kahler’s 
Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche , biblische Chris- 
tus, Leipzig, 1896. Another work, which lays the stress rather on 
personal experience of the life of Christ, and is written with great 
earnestness from that point of view, but seems to us too restricted in 
its historical basis, is Hermann’s Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott, 
ed. 2, Stuttgart, 1892 (Eng. tr. 1895). 

§ 85 . ii. The Christ of the Apostles . — In passing over 
from the Gospels to the rest of the NT we find ourselves 
hampered by critical questions. What we should most 
wish to ascertain is the conception of Christ held by the 
mass of the first disciples. And to some extent we can 
get at this; but, so far as we can do so, it is nearly 
always indirectly. The writings that have come down 
to us are those of the leaders, not of the followers; 
and many even of these are encumbered with questions 
as to date and origin. Some of these do not so much 


CHRIST IN HISTORY 


217 


matter, because in any case they belong to the end 
rather than the beginning of the apostolic age. The 
one book which we should most like to use more freely 
than we can is the Acts, the earlier chapters of which 
we quite agree with the author of the article in Dr. 
Hastings’ Dictionary in estimating highly. 

We will, however, cut the knot by not attempting 
to summarize the teaching of all the undisputed books, 
but by taking a single typical example of manageable 
compass, the first extant NT writing, 1 Thessalonians, 
written probably about a.d. 51 — in any case not later 
than 53, or within the first quarter of a century after 
the Ascension. 

Let us suppose for a moment, with the more extreme critics, 
that a thick curtain falls over the Church after this event. The 
curtain is lifted, and what do we find ? We turn to the opening 
verse of the Epistle (emended reading). St. Paul and his com¬ 
panions give solemn greeting to the ‘ Church of the Thessalonians 
(which is) in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.’ An 
elaborate process of reflexion, almost a system of theology, lies 
behind those familiar terms. First we note that the human name 
‘Jesus’ is closely associated with the title ‘Christ’ or ‘Messiah,’ 
which in the Gospels had been claimed with such quiet reticence 
and unobtrusiveness. From this time onwards the two names are 
almost inseparable, or the second supersedes the first: in other 
words, Jesus is hardly ever thought of apart from His high 
Messianic dignity. This effect is pressed home by the further 
title ‘Lord’ ( Ktipios ). The disciples had been in the habit of ad¬ 
dressing their Master as ‘ Lord ’ during His lifetime, in a sense 
not very different from that in which any Rabbi might be addressed 
by his pupils (Jn I3 13f -). But that sense is no longer adequate; the 
word has been filled with a deeper meaning. That ‘ Jesus is Lord ’ 
has become the distinctive confession of Christians (1 Co 12 3 , Ro io 9 ), 
where * Lord ’ certainly = ‘ the exalted Lord ’ of the Resurrection 
and Ascension (cf. Ac 2 36 ). 

What is still more remarkable, the glorified Jesus is, as it were, 
bracketed with ‘God the Father.’ Let us think what this would 


218 


CONCLUDING SURVEY 


mean to a strict Jewish monotheist; yet St. Paul evidently holds 
the juxtaposition, not as something to which he is tentatively feel¬ 
ing his way, but as a fundamental axiom of faith. In the appella¬ 
tion ‘ Father ’ we have already the first beginning — may we not 
say the first decisive step, which potentially contains the rest? — 
of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. And we observe, further, 
that the Thessalonian Church is said to have its being ‘ in Christ’ 
as well as ‘ in God.’ This is a characteristic touch of Pauline 
mysticism. The striking thing about it is that in this, too, the Son 
already holds a place beside the Father (cf. 2 14 4 16 ). 

There is another passage in the Epistle (1 Th 3 11 ) in which there 
is the same intimate combination of ‘our God and Father’ and 
‘ our Lord Jesus.’ Here the context is not exactly mystical, but 
the two names are mentioned in connexion with the divine pre¬ 
rogative of ordering events. The apostle prays that God and Christ 
will together ‘ direct ’ ( Karevdivai , ‘ make straight and unimpeded ’) 
his way to them (the Thessalonians). 

It is not by accident that the Holy Spirit is in a similar manner 
implicated in divine action (i 6 * 6 4 8 5 19 ), though it would be too much 
to say that the Spirit is spoken of distinctly as a Person. 

The historical events of the life of Christ are hardly alluded to, 
except His death and resurrection (i 10 4 14 5 10 ). In the last of these 
verses Christ is said to have died ‘ for us’; and in the preceding 
verse ‘ salvation,’ which is contrasted with ‘ death,’ is said to come 
‘through’ Him. In I 10 He is also spoken of as delivering Chris¬ 
tians ‘ from the wrath to come.’ It is assumed that Christ is in 
heaven, from whence He is expected to come again with impressive 
manifestations of power (i 10 4 16f -; cf. also the frequent allusions to 
i] irapovcrla rod Kvptov). 

The Second Coming is the only point on which the Epistle can 
be said to contain direct and formal teaching. The other points 
mentioned are all assumed as something already known, not as im¬ 
parted for the first time. 

Not only may we say that they are known, but it is also fair to 
infer that they are undisputed. There is a hint of controversy with 
the unbelieving Jews, but no hint of controversy with the Judiean 
Churches, which stand in the same relation to Christ (2 14 - 16 ). This is 
important; and it is fully borne out by the other Epistles, which 
show just how far the disputed ground between St. Paul and the 
other apostles extended. There was a good deal of sharp debate 
about the terms on which Gentiles shouM be admitted. There is no 
trace of any debate as to the estimate of the Person of Christ. 


CHRIST IN HISTORY 


219 


We have referred to the Pauline mysticism and to 
the hints, slight but significant, of what is known 
as the doctrine of the Atonement. It is clear that 
St. Paul ascribed to Christ not only divine attributes 
but divine activities — activities in the supersensual 
sphere, what he elsewhere calls 1 heavenly places ’ (ra 
hrovpaLvui). We know how these activities are en¬ 
larged upon in the Epistles to Corinthians, Galatians, 
and Romans. It would, of course, be wrong to suppose 
that all Christians, or indeed any great number, had 
an intelligent grasp of these ‘ mysteries ’; but we can 
see from the Epistle to Hebrews, 1 Peter, Epistles of 
John, and Revelation, that conceptions quite as trans¬ 
cendental had a wide diffusion. And a verse like 
2 Co 13 14 shows that there must have been large tracts 
of important teaching which are imperfectly represented 
in our extant documents. When we consider how occa¬ 
sional these documents are in their origin, the wonder 
is not that they have conveyed to us so little of the apos¬ 
tolic teaching, but that they have conveyed so much. 

The summary impression that we receive is indeed 
that the revolution foreshadowed at the end of the last 
section has been accomplished. The historical facts of 
the Lord’s life were not neglected; for Gospels were 
being written, of which those which we now possess 
are only surviving specimens. But in the whole epis¬ 
tolary literature of NT they have receded very much 
into the background, as compared with those transcen¬ 
dental conceptions of the Person and Work of Christ, 
to which the Gospels pointed forward, but which (with 
one exception) they did not directly expound. 

No doubt this was in the main only what was to 


220 


CONCLUDING SURVEY 


be expected. The narrative of the Gospels goes back 
to the period before the Resurrection; the epistolary 
literature dates altogether after it. Still it is remark¬ 
able how we seem to be plunged all at once into the 
midst of a developed theology. Nor is the wonder 
lessened, it is rather increased, when we remark that 
this theology is only in part set before us deliberately 
as teaching. The fact that it is more often presupposed 
shows how deep a hold it must have taken alike of the 
writer and of his readers. 

Impressive contrasts are sometimes drawn ( e.g . at 
the beginning of Dr. Hatch’s Hibbert Lectures) between 
the Sermon on the Mount and the Nicene Creed; 
and the contrast certainly is there. But it goes back far 
beyond the period of the Arian controversy. It is 
hardly less marked between the Sermon on the Mount 
and the writings which have come down to us under 
the names of St. Peter and St. Paul. And yet these 
writings are practically contemporary with the com¬ 
position of the Gospels. The two streams, of historical 
narrative on the one hand and theological inference on 
the other, really run side by side. They do not exclude 
but rather supplement, and indeed critically confirm, 
each other. For if the Gospels had been really not 
genuine histories of the words and acts of Christ, but 
coloured products of the age succeeding His death, 
we may be sure that they would have reflected the 
characteristic attitude of that age far more than they 
do. They do not reflect it, but they do account for it 
by those delicate hints and subtly inwoven intimations 
that He who called Himself so persistently Son of Man 
was also Son of God. 


CHRIST IN HISTORY 


221 


The one Gospel which bridges the gap more un¬ 
mistakably than the others is the Fourth. And the 
reason is obvious, if St. John was its author. He had 
a foot in both worlds. As the disciple whom Jesus 
loved, he vividly remembered His incomings and out¬ 
goings. And in the same capacity, as a disciple who 
was also an apostle, it fell to him to build up that 
theology which was the deliberate expression of what 
Jesus was to His Church, not in a section only of His 
being, the short three years which He had spent among 
His followers, but in His being as He had revealed 
it to them as a whole. It is difficult to think of 
either function as merely assumed by the writer at 
second-hand. On the contrary, we acquire a fresh 
understanding of the weight and solemnity of his words 
when we think of these as springing from direct 
personal contact with Christ, and intense personal 
conviction of what Christ really was, not to himself 
only, but to the world. In this respect the Fourth 
Gospel is unique; and the very expansion which it 
gives of the divine claims of Christ prepares us more 
completely than the other Gospels alone might have 
done for the transition from them to the Epistles. 

It is an especial satisfaction to be able to quote, in support of 
this view of the first-hand character of the Fourth Gospel, Dr. 
Loofs in PRE? iv. 29. 

§ 86. iii. The Christ of the Undivided Church .—For 
the purpose which we have before us we must examine 
the evidence of the Undivided Church on three distinct 
points, (a) What was the estimate of the Person of 
Christ in the age immediately succeeding that of the 


222 


CONCLUDING SURVEY 


Apostles? (b) Are there any traces of a tradition 
different from this? (c) What is the bearing upon the 

subject of the creeds and conciliar decisions? 

(a) On the first head we may say broadly that the 

mass of Christian opinion was in strict continuity 

with the NT, rarely (as we might expect) rising to an 
apprehension of its heights and depths, and keep¬ 
ing rather at the average level, but steadily loyal in 
intention, and showing no signs of recalcitrance. 

Ignatius of Antioch has the strongest grip of distinctive features 
of NT teaching (Virgin-Birth, pre-existence, incarnation, Logos, 
Trinitarian language). Clemens Romanus, though much less 

theological, also has pre-existence and a clearly implied Trinity 
(lviii. 2). In the former point Barnabas and Hermas agree, 

though the latter shows some confusion, not uncommon at this 
date, between Son and Spirit. And then we have the opening 
words of 2 Clement which exactly describe the general temper, 
‘ Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God, as of 
the Judge of quick and dead.’ 

These, with Polycarp and Aristides, who adopt a similar tone, 
are the writers. And then when we look for evidence as to 
popular feeling and practice, we have the wide prevalence of 

baptism in the Threefold Name ( Didache and Justin), and the 
hymns sung ‘to Christ as God’ (Pliny, Ep. ad Trajan . xcvi.; 

cf. Eus. HE v. xxviii. 5). It is clear that prayer was generally 

offered to Christ. Origen’s objection to this was a theological 
refinement, as he held that the proper formula was eixo-pLarelv rip 
deep 81a X. T. (de Orat. 15). 

The group of Apologists which stands out so clearly in the 
middle of the second century is characterized chiefly by the use 
that is made of the Logos doctrine, which was identified with the 
Logos of philosophy. With them begins a more active spirit of 
reflexion and speculation. The relation of the Son to the Father, 
and indeed the whole problem of unity and distinctions in the 
Godhead (Justin and Athenagoras), is beginning to be keenly 
canvassed. And at the same time it is clear that the question of 
what were afterwards called the ‘Two Natures’ was causing much 
perplexity. It was this difficulty which really lies behind the 


CHRIST IN HISTORY 


223 


experiments of Gnosticism. When we come to the latter half and 
last quarter of the century, with the theologians of Asia Minor, 
Irenseus, and Clement of Alexandria, the foundations have been laid 
of a Christian theology, which already bears the stamp that marks it 
throughout succeeding centuries, viz. that it is not free speculation, 
but reflexion upon data given by the Bible. 

( 'b ) It was natural, and could not well have been 
otherwise, that there was in this reflexion at first a con¬ 
siderable tentative element. There was no break, and 
no conscious divergence between it and the canonical 
writings. But are there no signs of such divergence? 
Are there no signs of a tradition differing from that 
embodied in these writings? Perhaps we ought to say 
that there are. 

The Gnostics began by inventing traditions of their own, but 
they soon fell into the groove, and professed to base their views 
like the rest on the canonical Scriptures. A conspicuous example 
of this is Heracleon’s commentary on St. John. But in these 
circles there was what we might call recalcitrance, as when Ce- 
rinthus and Carpocrates rejected the Virgin-Birth as impossible (Iren. 
adv. Hcer. I. xxvi. I, xxv. 1). The Gnostics, however, are outside 
the true development of Christianity, and their systems had a differ¬ 
ent origin. 

In closer contact with Christianity proper are the heretical 
Ebionites. For them a better claim might be made out to repre¬ 
sent a real divergence of tradition. It is possible that their denial 
of the Virgin-Birth was derived from the state of things when the 
canonical narratives had not yet obtained any wide circulation. 
And yet we should have to pass upon these Ebionites a verdict 
similar to that already passed upon the Gnostics. They were really 
Jews imperfectly Christianized. If they regarded Christ as \pi\bs 
dvdpwTTos, it was doubtless because the Jews did not expect their 
Messiah to have any other origin. This is a different thing from, 
though it may have some subordinate connexion with, the views ( e.g .) 
of Paul of Samosata, whose difficulty was caused by the union of 
the two natures. The human nature he regarded as having an 
ordinary human birth, though it came to be united to the Divine 
Logos. 


224 


CONCLUDING SURVEY 


A like account would hold good of Theodotus of Byzantium and 
the Rationalists described in Eus. HE v. xxviii. At last the 
reader may think that he is upon the track of a genuine Rational¬ 
ism ; but this did not go very deep. It was consistent with belief 
in the Virgin-Birth and in the Resurrection (Hippolytus, Ref. Hcer. 
vii. 35); in fact it probably amounted to little more than a dry literal 
exegesis. 

The Clementine Homilies point out that Christ did not call Him¬ 
self ‘ God ’ but the * Son of God, 1 and they emphasize this distinction 
somewhat after the manner of the later Arians (xvi. 15, 16). When 
we have said this, we shall have touched (it is believed) on all the 
main types of what might be thought to be a denial of Christ’s full 
Godhead. 

The more pressing danger of primitive Christianity lay in an 
opposite direction. Loyalty to Christ was so strong that the 
simpler sort of Christians were apt to look upon the humanity as 
swallowed up in the divinity. This is the true account of the early 
prevalence of Docetism (which made the deity of Christ real, the 
humanity phantasmal or unreal), and of the later prevalence of 
what is known to students as Modalistic Monarchianism, and to 
the general reader as Sabellianism (the doctrine that the Son and 
the Spirit were not distinct Persons in the Godhead, but modes or 
aspects of the One God). The answer of Noetus was typical of the 
frame of mind that gave rise to this, ‘ What harm do I do in glorify¬ 
ing Christ?’ (Hippol. c. Noet. 1) : it seemed meritorious to identify 
Christ with God. Both these tendencies were far stronger and more 
widely spread than anything that savoured of Rationalism. Docetism 
entered largely into the Apocryphal Gospels and Acts, which were 
very popular; and both Tertullian ( Prax . 1, 3) and Hippolytus 
{Ref Hcer. ix. 6, /xlyurros ayuv) imply that the struggle against 
Monarchianism was severe. 

It is evident from this to which side the scales 
inclined. The traces of anything like Rationalism in 
the modern sense are extremely few and slight. For 
the most part, what looks like it is not pure Rational¬ 
ism (or Humanitarianism) at all. More formidable was 
the excess of zeal which exalted the divine in Christ at 
the expense of the human. But the main body of the 
Church held an even way between both extremes, — 


CHRIST IN HISTORY 


225 


held it at least in intention, though there were no doubt 
a certain number of unsuccessful experiments in the 
construction of reasoned theory. 

(c) It was inevitable that in the early centuries there 
should be a great amount of tentative thinking. But 
little by little this was sifted out; and by the middle 
of the fifth century the ancient Church had practically 
made up its mind. It formulated its belief in the 
Chalcedonian definition (opo? rrjs iv X.a\i<r)86vi rcTaprrjs 
avvoSov) of the year 451 (which counts as Ecumenical, 
though the only Westerns present were the two legates 
of Pope Leo and two fugitive bishops from Africa), and 
in the Quicumque vult a liturgical creed composed, 
according to a tradition which may be sound, by 
Dionysius [of Milan] and Eusebius [of Vercelli], (cf. the 
remarkable preface in the Irish Liber Hymnorum , i. 203, 
ii. 92, ed. Bernard and Atkinson, Lond. 1898). 

This creed and the definitions of Chalcedon represent the end 
of the process; the beginning is marked by the creed known as 
the Apostles’. Criticism has of late been active upon this creed as 
well as upon the so-called Nicene and Athanasian, with a result 
which tends, it may be generally said, to heighten the value of all 
three. The date of the Apostles’ Creed (in its oldest and shortest 
form) has been reduced within the limits a.d. 100-150; Kattenbusch, 
the author of the most elaborate monograph on the subject, leans 
to the beginning of that period, Harnack to the end. It is agreed 
that it was in the first instance the local baptismal creed of the 
Church of Rome, and that it was the parent of all the leading 
provincial creeds of the West. The principal open question at 
the present time (1899, 1904) is as to its relation to the Eastern 
creeds. Kattenbusch and Harnack both think that it was carried 
to the East under Aurelian ( circa 270), and that it became the 
parent of a number of Eastern creeds, including that which we 
know as the Nicene; but this is conjecture. Harnack thinks that 
the Roman creed coalesced with floating formulae, to which he 
gives the name of Kerygmata , already circulating in the East. 

’5 • 


226 


CONCLUDING SURVEY 


But these also are more or less hypothetical. And the question is 
whether the Eastern creeds, which resemble the Roman, were not 
rather offshoots, parallel to it, of a single primitive creed, perhaps 
originating in Asia Minor. This is substantially the view of Dr. 
Loofs. The main argument in favour of it is that characteristic 
features of the Eastern type of creed already appear in Irenaeus 
and in a less degree in Justin. Harnack would explain these 
features as due to his Kerygmata ; and from the point of view of 
the history of doctrine the difference is not very great, because the 
Kerygmata were in any case in harmony with the creed. 

It would be difficult to overestimate the value of the existence of 
this fixed traditional standard of teaching at so early a date. It 
was the rallying and steadying centre of Catholic Christianity, 
which kept it straight in the midst of Gnostic extravagances and 
among the perils of philosophical speculation. Our so-called Nicene 
Creed is only the Apostles’ Creed in one of its more florid Oriental 
forms, with clauses engrafted into it to meet the rising heresies of 
Arius and Macedonius; while the Chalcedonian formula and the 
Quicumque take further account of the controversies connected with 
the names of Apollinaris, Nestorius, and Eutyches. 

The decisions in question were thus the outcome of a 
long evolution, every step in which was keenly debated 
by minds of great acumen and power, really far better 
equipped for such discussions than the average Anglo- 
American mind of to-day. If we can see that their 
premises were often erroneous (especially in such 
matters as the exegesis of the OT), we can also see 
that they possessed extraordinary fertility and subtlety 
in the handling of metaphysical problems. The dis¬ 
paraging estimates of the Fathers, which are often 
heard and seen in print, are very largely based upon 
the most superficial acquaintance with their writings. 
There are many things in these which may provoke a 
smile, but as a whole they certainly will not do so in 
any really open mind. There exists at the present time 
in Germany a movement, which bears the name of its 


CHRIST IN HISTORY 


227 


author Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889), directed against 
metaphysics in theology generally. No doubt Ritschl 
also was a thinker and writer of great ability; and the 
stress that he lays upon religious experience is by no 
means without justification. But it has not yet been 
proved that the negative side of his argument is equally 
valid, or that metaphysics can be wholly dispensed 
with. And so long as this is the case we certainly 
cannot afford to ignore these ancient decisions. Every 
word in them represents a battle, or succession of 
battles, in which the combatants were, many of them, 
giants. 

Literature. — The subject of this section brings up the whole 
history of * Christology,’ which may be studied in well-known 
works of Baur, Dorner, and Thomasius, or in Harnack’s History 
of Dogma. There is an excellent survey by Loofs in PRE 3 iv. 
16 ff., art. * Christologie, Kirchenlehre,’ marked by much inde¬ 
pendent judgment and research. In English may be mentioned 
Gore, Bampton Lectures (1891); Fairbairn, Christ in Modern 
Theology (1893); R. L. Ottley, Doctrine of the Incarnation (1896). 

The later phases of the critical discussions on the creeds are 
set forth in Kattenbusch, Das A post. Symbol (Leipzig, 1894, 1897, 
1900); Harnack’s art. ‘Apost. Symb.’ in PRE Z i. 741 ff. (this is the 
author’s most complete and latest utterance; the Eng. reader may 
consult Hist, of Dogma , i. 157 ff.), and an important art. by Loofs 
in Gott. gel. Anzeigen , 1895. 

For Ritschl’s attitude it may be enough to refer to his tract, 
Theologie u. Metaphysik , Bonn, 1881. We had an English version 
of the opposition to metaphysics in the writings of Matthew 
Arnold. 

§ 87 . iv. The Christ of Personal Experience. — In the 
case of Ritschl the religious experience of the individual 
or of communities is directly pitted against metaphysics 
as the criterion of theological truth. But apart from 
philosophical theory it is the criterion which is practi- 


228 


CONCLUDING SURVEY 


cally applied by hundreds of thousands of plain men — 
we will not say in search of a creed, but in support of 
the creed which they have found or inherited. And 
there is an immense volume of evidence derived from 
this source in corroboration of the truth of Christianity, 
or of what amounts to the same thing, the Christian 
estimate of the Person of Christ. The singular attrac¬ 
tion of this Person, the sense of what Christ has done, 
not only for mankind at large but for the individual 
believer, the sense of the love of God manifested in 
Him, have been so overpowering as to sweep away 
all need for other kinds of evidence. They create a 
passionate conviction that the religion which has had 
these effects cannot be wrong in its fundamental doc¬ 
trine, the pivot of the whole. 

This personal experience operates in two ways. It 
makes the individual believer cling to his belief in spite 
of all the objections that can be brought against it. 
But it also possesses a formative power which so 
fashions men in the likeness of Christ, that they in 
turn become a standing witness to those who have not 
come under the same influence. St. Paul expresses this 
by a forcible metaphor when he speaks of himself as in 
travail for his Galatian converts ‘ until Christ be formed ’ 
in them, as the embryo is formed in the womb (Gal 4 19 ). 
The image thus formed shines through the man, like 
a light through glass, and so He who came to be 
the Light of the world has His radiance transmitted 
downwards through the centuries and outwards to the 
remotest corners of the earth. 

This that we speak of is, of course, matter of com¬ 
mon knowledge and of everyday experience. The note 


THE PERSON OF CHRIST 


229 


of the true Christian cannot help being seen wherever 
there is genuine Christianity. It is, however, an in¬ 
estimable advantage that the process should have found 
expression in such classics of literature as the Confes¬ 
sions of Si. Augustine and the De Imitatione . In these 
it can not only be seen but studied. 


B . The Person of Christ. 

§ 88. It is necessary that these outlines should be 
brought to a close, and the close may seem rather abrupt. 
And yet the design which the writer set before himself is 
very nearly accomplished. It will be his duty at a later 
date to return to his subject on a somewhat larger 
scale; and for the present he would conclude, not so 
much by stating results as by stating problems. 

§ 89 . The Problem as it stands. — We have seen that 
there are four different ways of attempting to grasp 
what we can of the significance of the Person of Christ. 
Towards these four ways the attitude of different minds 
will be different. For some the decisions of the undi¬ 
vided Church will be absolutely authoritative and final. 
They will not seek to go either behind them or beyond 
them. Others will set the comparative simplicity of the 
Gospel picture against the more transcendental and 
metaphysical conceptions of the age that followed. To 
others, again, the picture traced in the Gospels will 
seem meagre and uncertain by the side of the exalted 
Christ preached by the apostles.* Yet others will take 

* * We know, literally speaking, with much greater certainty 
what Paul wrote than what Jesus spoke.’ ‘The centre of gravity 


230 


CONCLUDING SURVEY 


refuge in the appeal to individual experience, which will 
seem to give a more immediate hold on Christ and to 
avoid the necessity and perplexities of criticism. Others, 
still more radical in their procedure, will begin with the 
assumption that Christ was only man, and will treat 
all the subsequent development as reflecting the growth 
of the delusion by which He came to be regarded as 
God. 

This last is a drastic method of levelling down the 
indications of the divine in history, against which human 
nature protests and will continue to protest. But, short 
of this, the other milder alternatives seem to us to put 
asunder what ought rather to be combined. They seem 
to us to propound antitheses, where they ought rather 
to find harmony. As the phases in question, distinctly 
as they stand out from each other, are so many phases 
in the history of Christianity, they ought to contribute to 
the elucidation of the Christianity which they have in 
common. 

They ought to contribute to it, and we believe that 
they do contribute to it. There is, however, room still 
left for closer study, especially of the transitions. We 
have been so much in the habit of studying the Gospels 
by themselves and the Epistles by themselves that we 
have not paid sufficient attention to the transition from 
the one to the other. If we follow this clue, it will, we 
believe, show that the first three Gospels in particular 
need supplementing, that features which in them appear 
subordinate will bear greater emphasis, and that the 

for the understanding of the Person (of Christ) and of its significance 
falls upon what we are in the habit of calling His Work.’ Kahler 
Jesus u. das A T , pp. 37, 60. 


THE PERSON OF CHRIST 231 

resulting whole is more like that portrayed in the 
Fourth Gospel than is often supposed. 

For instance, we are of opinion that much of the 
teaching of Jn 14-16 is required by the verse 2 Co 13 14 
and other allusive passages in the early Epistles of St. 
Paul; that the command of Mt 28 19 (or something like 
it) is required by Didache vii. 1, 3; Just. Apol. i. 61 ; 
that the teaching respecting the Paraclete is required 
by the whole Pauline doctrine of the Spirit; that the 
allegory of the Vine is required by the Pauline doctrines 
of the Head and the Members, and of the Mystical 
Union; that the full sense of Mk io 45 || is required by 
such passages as Ro 3 s4 - 25 4 s5 s 6-8 etc., and the full 
sense of Mk 14 24 || by He 9 18-22 . And observations of 
this kind may be very largely extended. 

In like manner, while it is certainly right that the 
conceptions current in the early Church as to the Person 
and Work of Christ should be rigorously analyzed and 
traced to their origin, full weight should be given to the 
analogues for them that are to be found in NT; and 
where they have their roots outside the Bible, even 
there the efforts of the human mind to express its 
deepest ideas may deserve a more sympathetic judgment 
than they sometimes receive. 

And throughout, it is highly important that the 
doctrinal conceptions, whether of the apostolic age or 
of subsequent ages, should be brought to the test of 
living experience, and as far as possible expressed in 
the language of such experience. The mind and heart 
of to-day demands before all things reality. It is a 
right and a healthy demand; and the Churches should 
try with all their power to satisfy it. If they fail, the 


232 


CONCLUDING SURVEY 


fault will not lie in their subject-matter, but in them¬ 
selves. 

§ 90 . ii. A pressing Portion of the Problem. — There 
is one portion of the problem as to the Person of our 
Lord Jesus Christ which both in this country and in 
Germany has excited special interest in recent years. 
In its most concrete form this is the question as to our 
Lord’s Human Knowledge, which, however, runs up 
directly into what is generally known as the question of 
the Kenosis. And that, again, when thoroughly ex¬ 
amined, will be found to raise the whole question of the 
Two Natures. In regard to this series of connected 
questions there is still abroad an active spirit of inquiry. 

It was started in the first instance by the argument from our 
Lord’s use of the OT in its bearing upon the question of OT 
criticism. This led to a closer examination of the text, Mk 13 s2 
|| var. led. That, again, expanded into a discussion of the technical 
doctrine of the Kenosis (see DB , s.v.), an episode in which was a 
renewed study of the exegesis of Ph 2 5 - 11 . And that, in turn, in 
its later phase (H. C. Powell’s Prindple of the Incarnation , 1896), 
has opened up the whole question of the Two Natures, which in 
Germany for some time past has been far more freely handled than 
in Great Britain. 

These discussions have produced one little work of classical 
value, Dr. E. H. Gifford’s study of Ph 2 5 * 11 , entitled the Incar¬ 
nation , a model of careful and scientific exegesis, which appears 
to leave hardly anything more to be said on that head. It is also 
right to note the special activity on this subject of the diocese 
of Salisbury, largely due to the initiative and encouragement of its 
bishop (Mr. W. S. Swayne’s Our Lord's Knowledge as Man , with a 
preface by the Bishop of Salisbury, 1891, and Mr. Powell’s elaborate 
work mentioned above). Weighty contributions have been made to 
the subject by Dr. Bright in Waymarks of Church History (1894), 
Canon [now Bishop] Gore ( Dissertations , 1898), and in arts, in the 
Ch. Quarterly, Oct. 1891, and July 1897. 


THE WORK OF CHRIST 


233 


On the Continent special views of the Kenosis are connected with 
the names of Dorner, Thomasius, Gess, Godet, and others rather 
more incidentally. Tracts upon the smaller questions appeared not 
long ago by Schwartzkopff (Konnte Jesus irren? 1896), and Kahler 
(Jesus u. das A T, 1896). 

In spite of all this varied activity, it may be doubted 
whether the last word has yet quite been said (Dr. 
Gifford’s treatment of the exegetical question seems to 
us to come nearest to this). The first concern of the 
historian is that the facts shall be taken candidly as 
they are. It is more probable that our inferences will 
be wrong than the data from which they are drawn. 
And for the rest, we should not be surprised if a yet 
further examination of the subject should result rather 
in a list of tacenda than of prcedicanda . 


C . The Work of Christ. 

§ 91 . In regard to the work of Christ also it is best for 
us to state problems. Of these the most important are 
the two that meet us first; they have not been much 
discussed; and complete agreement upon them has not 
yet been attained. 

§ 92 . i. The Place in the Cosmical Order of the 
Ethical Teaching of Christ. — It is almost a question of 
names when it is asked whether Christ brought into 
the world a new ethical ideal. The question would be 
what constituted a new ideal. The Christian ideal, 
properly so called, is a direct development of what is 
found in OT, esp. in Psalms and the Second Part of 
Isaiah. But it receives a finish and an enrichment 


234 


CONCLUDING SURVEY 


beyond what it ever possessed before, and it is placed 
on deeper foundations. 

The chief outstanding question in regard to it would 
be the relation in which it stood to the older ideals of 
the best pagan life and philosophy in regard to the civic 
virtues, and to the newer ideals put forward in modern 
times in the name of science, art, and industry. The 
Christian ideal, it must be confessed, rather leaves 
these on one side. That it should do so would be quite 
as explicable if we adopt the Christian estimate of the 
Person of Christ as if we do not. If we do not adopt 
it, then the omission (so far as there is an omission) 
would be one of the limitations for which we were pre¬ 
pared. But if we take St. John’s view of the relation 
of the Son to the Father, and see in His action the 
action willed by the Father, we shall see it as part of 
the great world-movement, presupposing so much of 
that movement as had proved itself to be of permanent 
value in the past, and leaving room for further develop¬ 
ments, corresponding to altered states of society, in the 
future. The teaching of Christ was not intended to 
make a tabula rasa of all that had gone before in Greece 
or Rome any more than in Judaea; nor was it intended 
to absorb into itself absolutely all the threads of subse¬ 
quent evolution, where those threads work back to 
antecedents other than its own. It was intended so to 
work into the course of the world-movement as ulti¬ 
mately to recast and reform it. Its action has about it 
nothing violent or revolutionary, but it is none the less 
searching and effective. It is a force 1 gentle yet pre¬ 
vailing.’ 

Some remarks have been made above (p. 89 f.) on 


THE WORK OF CHRIST 


235 


the way in which the Christian ethical ideal operates 
and has operated. It is not thought that they are 
really sufficient; but they represent such degree of 
insight as the writer has attained to at present, 
and he would welcome warmly any new light on the 
subject. 

§ 93 . ii. The Significance of the Personal Example of 
Christ in regard to His Ethical Teaching. — When once 
it is realized that the root principle of the ethics of 
Jesus is Life through Death , the death of the lower self 
with a view to the more assured triumph of the higher, 
it must needs break in upon us that the Life of Christ 
bears to His teaching a wholly different relation from 
that which the lives of ordinary teachers bear to theirs. 
An honest man will no doubt try to practise what he 
preaches, but that will be just a matter of maxims of 

conduct. The Life of Christ, we can see, was some¬ 

thing very much more than this. It was a systematic 
working out of the Christian principle on a conspicuous 
and transcendent scale. The Death and Resurrection 
of Jesus were the visible embodiment of the law of all 
spiritual being that death is the true road to the higher 
life. 

When we reflect further who it was that was thus 
exhibiting in His own Person the working out of this 

law to the utmost extremity, we become aware that 

Christians have it indeed ‘ placarded ’ before their eyes 
(Gal 3 1 ) in a sense in which no moral law ever was set 
forth before. 

Add that Christ had Himself predicted and that His 
followers generally believed that after His Ascension 


236 


CONCLUDING SURVEY 


He was again visiting His people through His Spirit; 
that Divine forces were at work in the world, all radi¬ 
ating from Himself — Himself at once crucified and 
risen; add this to the previous beliefs of which we 
have just spoken, — remember that Christians supposed 
themselves to be actually conscious of these forces 
impressing and moulding their own hearts and lives, 
and we may come gradually to understand what St. 
Paul meant when He spoke of ‘ dying ’ or ‘ being cruci¬ 
fied ’ with ‘Christ’ and ‘rising again with Him.’ It 
seems to be a similar idea to that which St. John ex¬ 
presses when he puts into the mouth of Christ the 
claim, ‘I am the Way.’ Rather, perhaps, we should 
not narrow down this phrase to anything less than the 
whole content of the Life of Christ on earth. * He 
supplied in Himself the fixed plan, according to which 
all right human action must be framed: the Spirit 
working with their spirit supplied the ever-varying 
shapes in which the one plan had to be embodied ’ 
(Hort, Hills. Led. p. 30). 

§ 94 . iii. The Work of Christ as Redeviptive. — Here 
we come on to more settled ground. At a very 
early date Christian tradition gave to Christ the title 
‘Saviour’ (Lk 2 11 , Ac 5 31 13 23 etc.; cf. Mt i 21 , Lk 19 10 ), 
‘Saviour of the world’ (Jn 4 42 ; cf. 3 17 12 47 ). What 
does this title ‘Saviour’ include? It doubtless includes 
every sense in which Christ rescued and rescues men 
from the power and the guilt of sin. He does this, as 
we have seen, both by teaching and by example — by 
inimitable teaching and by a consummate example. 
But if we follow the method indicated above (p. 230 f.), 


THE WORK OF CHRIST 


237 


if we take the hints in the Gospels, with the fuller light 
thrown upon them by the Epistles, we shall be led to 
the conclusion that there was something yet more in 
the Life and Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus 
Christ than this, that there was something in these 
connected acts of His which had its counterpart in the 
sacrifices of OT; and that the deepest meaning and 
purpose of sacrifice was fulfilled in Him. This is a 
belief which Christians have held from the first days 
onwards ; and it is a belief which does not and will not 
lack careful restatement at the present time. 

§ 95 . iv. The Work of Christ as Revelation. — On a 
similar footing is the belief that Christ came not only 
to give, but to be a revelation of the inmost mind and 
character of the Father. Such a revelation was needed. 
It is not contained in the ‘ cosmic process.’ If we had 
that process alone before us, we could not infer that 
God was a Being absolutely righteous and absolutely 

loving. The idea that He might be so could not rise 

above a hypothesis. But at this point the Incarnation 
intervenes. And here again the Synoptic Gospels 
present us with one central passage (Mt ii 27 !!) with 
other scattered hints which are taken up and made 
more explicit in the Fourth Gospel, while that again 
does but give the fuller ground for a belief which was 
certainly held in the apostolic circle (comp. e.g. the 
central passage Jn 14 7 ' 10 with io 14f - 3 16 , 1 Jn 4 s - 16 , 
Ro 5 8 etc.). So we get the broad doctrine led up to 
by St. Paul and Epistle to the Hebrews (2 Co 4 4 6 , 
Col i w , He i 3 ), and finally formulated by St. John, 

that the Son was the Logos or Word (which might bo 


238 


CONCLUDING SURVEY 


paraphrased c mouthpiece/ or ‘ vehicle of utterance of 
the mind ’) of the Father. 

§ 96 . v. The Founding of the Church. — Conventional 
language is too often heard as though the immediate 
object of the Incarnation was the founding of the full 
hierarchical system as it existed in the Middle Ages. 
This language is based on the complete identification 
of the Church with the ‘ kingdom of heaven ’ (see 

p. 83 f. sup.'). On the other hand, there is a school of 
critics, both in Germany and in England, who deny 
that ‘ Jesus ever created, or thought of creating, an 
organized society.’ The main ground for this latter 
view is the doubt that rests over the two instances — 
one of them ambiguous — of the use of the word 
1 Church ’ which are confined to the peculiar element 
of the First Gospel (Mt 16 18 18 17 ), and the certainty 
that there are some senses in which the ‘ kingdom ’ 
and the Church cannot be identified. In some (though 
not in all) of those who adopt this line of reasoning 
there is the further tendency to minimize or restrict 
all that would imply an extended outlook of Jesus 

over the ages. 

It seems to us, however, to be going too far to say 
that the ‘ kingdom of heaven is without organization 
and incapable of being organized.’ The two parables 
of the Tares and the Draw-net distinctly imply the 
existence of a society; and that the divine laws and 
influences which constitute the kingdom should ex¬ 
press themselves in a society as the vehicle for their 
realization is antecedently probable. But when Jesus 

gathered round Him the Twelve, He was practically 


THE WORK OF CHRIST 


239 


forming the nucleus of a society; and that society has 
had a continuous existence ever since, so that it is 
difficult to think that it was not contemplated. More¬ 
over, when we turn to the writings of St. Paul, we find 
that even in his earlier Epistles he seems to think of 
Christians as forming a single body with differentiation 
of function (Ro 12 4 - 8 , 1 Co i2 4r30 ), and in his later 
Epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, Pastoral Epistles) the 
unity of the Church with its regular forms of ministry 
is brought out still more emphatically. 

We also find that the Day of Pentecost is described 
in Acts as inaugurating a state of things which agrees 
well with the indications in the Epistles of St. Paul, 
while it confirms the promise of Lk 24 49 , Jn 14 16 26 . 

On the assumptions made in these Outlines it would 
be extremely improbable that this series of phenomena 
was not fully foreseen and deliberately designed by 
Christ. It would seem, however, that, after the 
manner of the divine operations in nature, He was 
rather content to plant a germ with indefinite capacities 
of growth, than thought it necessary Himself to fix in 
advance the details of organization. 

The exact nature of the powers conferred upon the 
apostles is still a subject of much discussion as these 
concluding lines are written (1899). 

§ 97. Lives of Christ. — To write the Life of Christ ideally is 
impossible. And even to write such a Life as should justify itself 
either for popular use or for study, is a task of extreme difficulty. 
After all the learning, ability, and even genius devoted to the sub¬ 
ject, it is a relief to turn back from the very best of modern Lives 
to the Gospels. And great as are the merits of many of these 
modern works, there is none (at least none known to the writer — 
and there are several that he ought to know but does not) which 


240 


CONCLUDING SURVEY 


possess such a balance and combination of qualities as to rise 
quite to the level of a classic. What is wanted is a Newman, 
with science and adequate knowledge. No one has ever touched 
the Gospels with so much innate kinship of spirit as he. It should 
be needless to say that the Life of Christ can be written only by a 
believer. Renan had all the literary gifts — a curiosa felicitas of 
style, an aesthetic appreciation of his subject, and a saving com¬ 
mon-sense which tempered his criticism; but even as literature 
his work is spoilt by self-consciousness and condescension, and his 
science was not of the best. 

It will be well here only to name a select list of books which 
may be used more or less systematically. The minor works are 
legion. 

Among the older works that would still most repay study would 
probably be those of Neander (ed. 7, 1873), Hase (. Leben Jesu , 
ed. 5, 1865 ; Geschichte Jesu , 1876), Ewald (vol. vi. in Eng. tr. of 
Gesch. d. Volkes Israel , 1883), Andrews (revised ed. New York : 
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1892). 

In this country the books most generally current are Farrar’s 
Life of Christ (since 1874); Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus 
the Messiah (since 1883, revised editions from 1886, abridged 
ed. 1890); to which should perhaps be added Cunningham 
Geikie, Life and Words of Christ (1877). Of these the best is 
probably Dr. Edersheim’s (with very ample illustrations from 
Jewish sources); but none of the three can quite be said to 
grapple with the deeper underlying problems, critical or other. 
A striking attempt was made by the late Professor J. R. Seeley 
to realize in modern forms the ethical and social aspect of the 
Life of Christ in Ecce Homo (ed. 6, 1866). And the imaginative 
works, Dr. Edwin A. Abbott’s Philochristus (ed. 3, 1878), and the 
anonymous As Others Saw Him (1895, see P* x 45 *«/•)> may be 
consulted with advantage. [Dr. Abbott’s later works have already 
been mentioned (p. 117).] 

In French, besides Renan, E. de Pressense (1866, Eng. tr. same 
date and later; Protestant) may still be read. Pere Didon (1891, 
also translated; Roman Catholic) represents with dignity the 
older orthodoxy ; and A. Reville (1897) the newer criticism. 

The most thoughtful and searching, as well as (if we except 
Dr. Edersheim) the most learned work, has been done in 
Germany. The two writers who have tried most earnestly to 
combine the old with the new are Bernhard Weiss and Beyschlag. 
Of these we prefer Weiss. His Leben Jesu (1882, Eng. tr. 1883, 


THE WORK OF CHRIST 


24 I 


1884) is a conscientious and thorough piece of work, which, 
however, has to be studied rather than read. Beyschlag’s (1885 
and later) is more flowingly written, but also exhibits rather more 
markedly the weaker side of a mediating theology. Keim’s Jesu 
von A r azara (1867-1882, abridged ed. 1873-1883) is impressive 
from the evident sincerity of its author, his intellectual force 
and command of his materials, but the critical premises are un¬ 
fortunate. A concise Life which has just appeared by Dr. P. W. 
Schmidt of Basel ( Gesch . Jesu, 1899) seems, if a glance may be 
trusted, to come under the head of minor works. It gains its 
conciseness by omitting debatable matter. [This work is now 
complete: vol. ii. contains elaborate Notes on the text of vol. i. 
There is also, now translated into English, a larger Life by Oscar 
Holtzmann, which may be said to represent (with a few individual- 
isms of no very great importance) the average opinion of German 
critical circles.] 

The student may be advised to take Weiss for his principal 
commentary, referring to Schiirer (p. 28 sup.') or Edersheim for 
surroundings, and using along with it Tischendorf’s Synopsis Evan - 
gelica, or a Harmony like Stevens and Burton’s (new and revised ed. 
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1904). He should read Ecct 
Homo. 


16 









o 

CO 


<M 

CO 


o 

CO 



m A 


■ HR 






























































































































































































































































































27 ISQ5 








Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 





















































